Tablets

[ka9q]

The primary reason I never got into programming for the iDevices was the control freak approach Apple picked up from the cell phone companies.

Exactly. I work in the cellular industry so I see that close up. It's counterproductive, but trying to convince them to see differently is nigh impossible.

It's very common for executives to rationalize limiting customers' uses of their products and services as "good for business" when it's usually exactly the opposite. A perfect example is the instinctive aversion of many communications companies to being "dumb pipe providers" when in fact that's historically where most of the money has been.

And the primary reason I'm finally moving away from the Mac is this culture taking over their personal computers as well.

Same here. I was already planning to replace my aging Macbook with a generic laptop running Linux last summer when the Macbook got stolen. I bought a Sony Vaio, mainly because of its light weight, installed Linux, and have been using it ever since. There are a few annoyances, mostly having to do with unsupported or poorly supported media formats, but I've worked around most of them. It's worth it to know that my environment will always be open and that many eyeballs besides mine are constantly looking for and fixing bugs and contributing enhancements.

Although I was sympathetic, I was highly skeptical about the open source movement when it started. I think they've since amassed a truly impressive track record, and ultimately it will win; it's only a matter of time.

And on a related subject, "Windows 8 certified" ARM hardware is required by Microsoft to be locked down so the user can only install Windows.

How can this not be seen as a blatant antitrust violation?

It's amazing to think that we still have the antitrust laws on the books given that I haven't heard of a single significant enforcement action in decades. Then again, the same is true for our laws against torture.

[ka9q]

Then again, it is not difficult to jail break iOS or Android and have your way with it.

Maybe not. Buy why should I give Apple my business and reward them for bad behavior when I have better alternatives?

I started using Macs as a compromise between Linux (open but incomplete) and Windows (proprietary, buggy, insecure but better supported by the web). At least part of Apple's software (the Darwin OS under MacOSX) was open source, being based on BSD UNIX, and many of my Linux/UNIX applications and habits translated almost intact.

Apple's hardware was also well built, if not exactly a bargain. I've bought a lot of it for my family members largely out of self-interest, as I absolutely detest having to support a Windows system, especially over the phone when I can't see what's going on.

But Linux steadily improves, and now that Apple is emulating all of Microsoft's bad habits I decided it was time for another re-evaluation.

[LunarOrbit]

I have an iPhone and an iPad 2. Some days I don't turn on my laptop because I can do what I want on my phone or iPad. I don't need to wait a minute and a half for my laptop to boot just so I can watch YouTube videos, or read my email. My laptop is heavier and more cumbersome, and I can't use it for more than a couple hours without being plugged into a wall. The touch screen makes reading ebooks or news feel more natural, like reading the paper versions.

I can do a lot of the things I do for work on my iPad in a pinch. I can develop web pages, use FTP, and do basic image manipulation. I can even remotely access and operate my laptop from my iPad or phone... if I need to. But yeah, I'd rather use a real computer for any significant amount of work.

I don't mind Apple being a little bit restrictive, at least not for my phone. I like that they try to vet apps before letting them on my phone because I don't want just anyone getting access to my contact list, GPS coordinates, or image library. They could definitely loosen up a bit though.

I'm kind of thinking about getting a Windows 8 tablet next time, but I don't intend to buy one any time soon. I'll let them work out the bugs and build up their app selection for a while.

[LunarOrbit]

Exactly. I work in the cellular industry so I see that close up. It's counterproductive, but trying to convince them to see differently is nigh impossible.

It's very common for executives to rationalize limiting customers' uses of their products and services as "good for business" when it's usually exactly the opposite. A perfect example is the instinctive aversion of many communications companies to being "dumb pipe providers" when in fact that's historically where most of the money has been.

I think if it wasn't for Apple and Google our cellular data plans would still be capped at 500mb bandwidth, tethering wouldn't be allowed, and video conferencing (Facetime, Skype) on a cellphone would be science fiction.
 

[ka9q]

Sometimes a cellular company does come around. Many years ago, a colleague and I prototyped what we thought was an obviously useful device: a portable router with a cellular data modem on one side and a WiFi access point on the other. My personal motivation was having attended many technical group meetings in hotels and other places where no local Internet service was yet available (this was a while ago).

It was just a simple proof of concept running on a Linux laptop.

When we pitched this to a cellular company during a meeting, we were completely taken aback by the hostility of their reaction. They thought it was 'cheating'. Everyone must have their own cellular data modem, they said, and they didn't seem to hear us suggest that this could actually promote their fairly new IP-over-cellular service as well as make them money.

Years later I went into one of their retail stores and saw them selling devices doing exactly what we had proposed.

[ka9q]

I don't mind Apple being a little bit restrictive, at least not for my phone. I like that they try to vet apps before letting them on my phone because I don't want just anyone getting access to my contact list, GPS coordinates, or image library.

Why is that Apple's responsibility? You can prevent all those things yourself by simply not installing applications you don't trust.

Apple's sole responsibility is to eliminate security holes in their own products that would let someone destroy, modify or retrieve your data without your explicit approval. These nasty things can happen whether or not they refuse to let you use your own device as you see fit.

Experience has shown, over and over again, that security through obscurity just doesn't work. Neither does handing over responsibility for your security to an entity whose interests differ from yours. When the source code for a popular program is available for public inspection, bugs and security holes are quickly noticed, reported and fixed by other users, often before ever being exploited.

Keeping source code proprietary doesn't keep the bad guys from finding and exploiting security holes, but it does keep everyone but the owner from fixing them. There are many instances of software companies flatly denying security problems with their products until (and sometimes even after) they are widely exploited, and you're helpless until they deign to fix them.

Historically, MacOSX has been much more secure than Windows because it was based on an open source operating system, BSD UNIX. But with iOS, Apple is succumbing to full-blown Microsoft-itis, and we're starting to see the same kinds of problems with their stuff. Did you hear about the journalist who had all the data on all of his Apple devices wiped clean because someone who didn't like him called up Apple, pretended to be him, and reported them stolen?

[cjameshuff]

I don't mind Apple being a little bit restrictive, at least not for my phone. I like that they try to vet apps before letting them on my phone because I don't want just anyone getting access to my contact list, GPS coordinates, or image library.

Why is that Apple's responsibility? You can prevent all those things yourself by simply not installing applications you don't trust.

And Apple's restrictions don't even give you those benefits. If you install software, it has access to those things, whether it came from the App Store or not. It's not like they give you a listing of the APIs each program uses so you can see what apps access the GPS.

[Echnaton]

Lets just say that between Apple, Google, MS and Linux there is a device somewhere for most people's preference.  As a user I am happy with the iOS, Android, Windows and Linux devices I have, each for what they are used for.  I am far more concerned that device makers are going to gang up to make it illegal to hack devices one has purchased.

[onebigmonkey]

My personal take on the Apple thing is that developers know what they are dealing with - they don't have to cater for different device OS and hardware configurations, which gives more stability in the things that are developed. If you don't like the way that gives control, or any other aspect of the way Apple do business, don't buy from them.

Back to tablets in general, I was letting the ladies at work handle my 10 inch one (~cough~), and one of them related the line from the salesman she was speaking to: "it's an entertainment device".  I think that's spot on for them at the moment. - anything else you can get then to do is a bonus. I've typed this post on my tablet and I know they aren't entirely a laptop replacement just yet.

[Echnaton]

...my 10 inch one...

Lucky you mine is not that big but my wife still likes to share it.

I know they aren't entirely a laptop replacement just yet.

Old guys like me have honed our work habits on computers.  Seeing college students using tablets as tools on collaborative projects shows that working with tablets is a different experience that leverages the strength of the device.  The limitations are a relativity minor hindrances to being creative if you learn to work around them, as we have with laptops.  Robustness, mobility and battery life are a huge advantage.

[LunarOrbit]

I don't mind Apple being a little bit restrictive, at least not for my phone. I like that they try to vet apps before letting them on my phone because I don't want just anyone getting access to my contact list, GPS coordinates, or image library.

Why is that Apple's responsibility? You can prevent all those things yourself by simply not installing applications you don't trust.

Sometimes it's hard to know who to trust, unfortunately. A dishonest app developer wouldn't tell you that they're going to sell your contact list to advertisers. And how does a new developer build trust in the first place? At least I know that Apple is looking at new apps before making them available, and they can remove apps if they have any concerns over privacy etc.

A year or two ago someone made an app that combined the relationship status of single women from Facebook with the GPS coordinates from their phones, and then generated a map of single women nearby. It was supposed to be a dating app, but it could be used by stalkers just as easily. And the women didn't even know they were being mapped. Somehow this got through Apple's approval process, but it was taken out of the store pretty quickly. I think Facebook also revoked access to their API for that developer.

It wasn't taking advantage of any obscure security holes in the hardware or operating system, it was just making use of the intended features of the phone (cellular data, GPS) that made people want to buy it in the first place. How can Apple prevent developers from doing things like that without removing GPS capabilities completely? Without some kind of control by Apple over the apps stalkers would still be able to get that app from somewhere else and install it.

I would also worry about a dishonest developer making a fake app for a bank and using it to phish for account numbers and passwords. Without control over where apps can come from, there's no way to prevent things like that from happening.

Apple's sole responsibility is to eliminate security holes in their own products

And I think their biggest security hole is their app store. It allows apps that they don't develop onto our phones.

[LunarOrbit]

I don't mind Apple being a little bit restrictive, at least not for my phone. I like that they try to vet apps before letting them on my phone because I don't want just anyone getting access to my contact list, GPS coordinates, or image library.

Why is that Apple's responsibility? You can prevent all those things yourself by simply not installing applications you don't trust.

And Apple's restrictions don't even give you those benefits. If you install software, it has access to those things, whether it came from the App Store or not. It's not like they give you a listing of the APIs each program uses so you can see what apps access the GPS.

Actually, they do. The first time you run a new app that makes use of the GPS it asks you if you want to give it permission. And then if you go into the settings for the phone is lists all of the apps that you have given permission to use the GPS.

[cjameshuff]

Actually, they do. The first time you run a new app that makes use of the GPS it asks you if you want to give it permission. And then if you go into the settings for the phone is lists all of the apps that you have given permission to use the GPS.

That has nothing at all to do with the app store or Apple's restrictions.

[Echnaton]

Apples responsibility in this situation is to provide products for customers in a manner that best benefits the shareholders.  We may or may not like everything about them but they objectively have succeeded well on both accounts.