 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:45:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> That's a bit of a straw man argument. Many app developers for Android
>> devices don't "target" anything other than the Android platform.
>
> Most android apps are targeted at cellphones and do not take full
> advantage of the resolution and screen size of a tablet, nor the
> specialized hardware it might have.
The phone is a more ubiquitous device, arguably.
But I'm sure we both could find examples to support our own points of
view.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:54:11 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Of course Android has that same problem - Apple tightly controls their
>> platforms. That can increase the quality of the products offered, but
>> at the same time, their dev agreement allegedly is one of the more
>> draconian agreements out there.
>
> There are, roughly speaking, two possible at making hardware that can
> run
> software: Either make it completely open for anybody to use in any way
> they want, or keep it under tight control.
>
> The former method is more liked by developers and many users, but it
> inevitably causes efficiency and compatibility problems when random
> Chinese companies start spewing their cheap low-quality clones and
> flooding the market with them, not to talk about the low quality of the
> software, with little to no quality control, and which may or may not
> work properly with your particular brand of the hardware. While Android
> devices work acceptably well for the most part, they often suffer from
> this problem.
>
> The second method, used not only by Apple but also by most game
> console
> manufacturers (especially the big ones, ie. Nintendo, Microsoft and
> Sony) ensures that the device *will* be "plug-and-play" (or, in this
> case, "install-program-and-play"). There will be no cheap low-quality
> clones, there will be no software with little or no quality control. If
> you buy the program, you will be able to run the program. No messing
> around, no tuning parameters, drivers and whatnot, just
> install-and-play, and it will just work. Most users appreciate this,
> even those who don't realize it themselves.
That's a fair point.
But it boils down to this - do you want an appliance, or do you want a
general purpose computing device.
If you want an appliance, then Apple's the way to go.
I know plenty of Linux die-hards who have iPhones because they want their
phone to be an appliance and not something they're likely to tinker with.
But one has to realise that classification and that the two aren't
necessarily direct competitors to each other, because they fill different
needs.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:54:45 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/1/2011 10:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Apple's approach to computing is different than everyone else's
>
> Not really. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. When
> you realize that it's OK for the app store and itunes and such to break
> even as long as it increases hardware sales, it makes more sense.
> They're not more draconian than the phone companies are.
It's about setting that expectation, though. Apple tries to compete in
the "general computing" arena, but they really are an appliance vendor.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:12:29 -0400, Stephen wrote:
>
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> But I think the most egregious examples of "unnecessary letters" are the
> place names "Leicester" and "Worchestershire". But I can understand not
> pronouncing all of those letters, particularly after a few pints. ;)
Wales wins hands down. Consider the town of...
Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwyll-llantysiliogogogoch
No, I didn't just make that up:
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/gales.jpg
Best Reghaurddes,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> But it boils down to this - do you want an appliance, or do you want a
> general purpose computing device.
If you want a general-purpose computer, why don't you buy a laptop?
You'll be able to do a lot more with it than with a tablet. Many modern
laptops aren't even significantly heavier or larger either, so it's not
even a question of portability.
The iPad is not a laptop. It's a portable multimedia device which also
doubles as a pretty decent game console (it is, in fact, surprisingly
powerful at running games, even heavy 3D ones). It also has an incredible
battery life (which most portable devices can only dream of).
I suppose the Android tablets try to be a bit of both, and in many cases
probably not being very good at either.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> What Apple wants to do is take 30% of the revenue from the book
Do you have an actual reference to this? (I'm not saying you are wrong.
I just have never heard that the 30% share applies to books as well as apps.
It would be nice to know for sure.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:31:54 -0400, Mike the Elder wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:12:29 -0400, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> But I think the most egregious examples of "unnecessary letters" are
>> the place names "Leicester" and "Worchestershire". But I can
>> understand not pronouncing all of those letters, particularly after a
>> few pints. ;)
>
> Wales wins hands down. Consider the town of...
>
> Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwyll-llantysiliogogogoch
>
> No, I didn't just make that up:
>
> http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/gales.jpg
LOL, yeah, Wales would win a competition like that. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:43:44 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> But it boils down to this - do you want an appliance, or do you want a
>> general purpose computing device.
>
> If you want a general-purpose computer, why don't you buy a laptop?
> You'll be able to do a lot more with it than with a tablet. Many modern
> laptops aren't even significantly heavier or larger either, so it's not
> even a question of portability.
I have a laptop.
But I've also tried to use a laptop in coach class on an airplane. It's
not a pretty sight.
> The iPad is not a laptop. It's a portable multimedia device which also
> doubles as a pretty decent game console (it is, in fact, surprisingly
> powerful at running games, even heavy 3D ones). It also has an
> incredible battery life (which most portable devices can only dream of).
Yes, that's exactly right. I remember going to a conference where a
presenter asked if anyone had an iPad, and a guy in the back of the room
did. He had it set up on a stand, so it looked like (from the presenter's
point of view) he was using it to take notes. The presenter couldn't see
that the attendee was writing notes on a pad of paper until the attendee
held up the paper for him to see.
> I suppose the Android tablets try to be a bit of both, and in many
> cases
> probably not being very good at either.
No, I think most Android tablets try to be a media consumption device
(let's face it, text input without a keyboard is painful for most
people), but the users try to push the limits of what they can do.
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:45:53 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> What Apple wants to do is take 30% of the revenue from the book
>
> Do you have an actual reference to this? (I'm not saying you are
> wrong.
> I just have never heard that the 30% share applies to books as well as
> apps. It would be nice to know for sure.)
Well, I know it's the reason why Amazon and Barnes & Noble removed in-app
purchases from the apps. Let me see if I can find one of the articles
(it probably was on The Register)....
http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/18/app_of_the_week_ios_amazon_kindle/
is as good a starting point as any.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:45:53 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> What Apple wants to do is take 30% of the revenue from the book
> >
> > Do you have an actual reference to this? (I'm not saying you are
> > wrong.
> > I just have never heard that the 30% share applies to books as well as
> > apps. It would be nice to know for sure.)
> Well, I know it's the reason why Amazon and Barnes & Noble removed in-app
> purchases from the apps. Let me see if I can find one of the articles
> (it probably was on The Register)....
> http://www.reghardware.com/2011/08/18/app_of_the_week_ios_amazon_kindle/
> is as good a starting point as any.
I thought you were talking about selling books for the iPad, rather than
an app that has an in-app purchasing system for additional data.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
