> "If you see one of your best people walking out the door at 6:00 pm, try to think why you haven't challenged that person with an interesting project. If you see one of your average programmers walking out the door at 6:00 pm, recognize that this person is not developing into a good programmer."
Wow! What a horribly shitty attitude. If your "average programmer" isn't spending their every waking moment at work they're not a good programmer?!? Employers with attitudes like that deserve a serious atomic kick in the balls.
Sounds like a more generalized, urban version of the Mod Live ski goggles (http://www.reconinstruments.com/products/mod). The Mod Live googles look amazing, but pretty bulky (plus, I don't ski). If the Google glasses end up being half as cool I'd definitely be interested.
Google+ has completely supplanted Twitter as a news source for me. With G+, you get actual paragraphs of information (often with pictures, etc). If there's a link, it's a real link, not one of those stupid damn shortened urls's (I REALLY hate those). With Twitter, a cryptic 100 character "message" and a url shortened link.
Good riddance to Twitter. G+ has a lot of room for improvement, but Twitter's lack of usability is mind boggling.
> They want to control what apps can be installed simply to keep out malware and porn, so that they can do right by their customers who don't want malware and the parents who don't want porn apps.
That's simply untrue. Many apps have been blocked from the iPhone apps store that were neither "porn" nor malware. If it were just about blocking "porn" and malware then they would continue with their (excellent BTW) curated apps store, but could still allow side-loaded apps for those who wish to use them. Instead they block sideloaded apps to ensure complete control of the iOS ecosystem and render impossible any kind of credible competing app store (like the Amazon App store) on iOS.
Agreed. For example ban on competing browsers embedded in the iOS SDK is simply a monopoly protection, and has nothing to do with customers' interests.
By this logic any browser should be banned from the system, including their own, since their sandboxes have vulnerabilities as well. So I'm not buying this argument. Using security arguments to hide anti competitive intentions just doesn't cut it.
It's not about vulnerabilities. It's a line in the sand that says "you can't have executable code in your app which is not signed and vetted before release".
They actually DON'T let you have the optimized javascript engine they use in their browser in your app either, probably for the same reason (security loopholes).
The last time I checked their SDK license, it let you use their JavaScript VM for the dynamic code (unless this changed recently):
===>
3.3.2 An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any
means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other
frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in
an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and builtin
interpreter(s).
<===
So the argument that they ban any interpreted code is hypocritical. They ban competing browsers through banning JavaScript VMs.
No, there is an optimized Javascript interpreter only in safari, then there is the UIWebView control which you can use a less-optimized javascript interpreter in your app.
>It’s a trade-off. Most OSes allow marking memory pages as executable for performance reasons. iOS disallows it for security reasons. If you allow for pages of memory to be escalated from writable to executable (even if you require the page be made permanently read-only first), then you are enabling the execution of unsigned native code. It breaks the chain of trust. Allowing remote code to execute locally turns every locally exploitable security flaw into a remotely exploitable one.
Great, so they just know that there are more vulnerabilities in their own optimized engine, still they use it in their own browser. At the same time they ban anything else on the system, claiming that it promotes security. Doesn't sound convincing to me at all. Meaning, that if I, as user will find a more secure browser - I won't be able to use it, since it's banned on pretense that it'll compromise security (hypothetically, not that I use iOS as a user anyway).
The entire premise of this thread is false. UIWebView uses the optimized engine as of iOS 5.
This is just an example of Apple releasing new code in the browser first before extending it into other apps being turned into an excuse for people to ignorantly or dishonestly bash Apple.
The reason it was put in Mobile Safari first is obvious-- Apple controls the source code there. Thus they can deal with any instability caused by the engine in the wild there.
If they immediately put it in all the UIWebViews in the system then many third party developers apps would become unstable due to these bugs.
I find it quite astounding that people are trying to make hay out of Apple using a phased roll out for a key piece of technology.
It just shows how any opportunity that can be used to mischaracterize Apple is seized upon, and even when the situation that led to the original issue is long resolved, people continue to report it as fact.
I don't know who down voted it, but you make two false statements.
First off, there is no ban on competing browsers. There are a wide variety of browsers available in the AppStore, and I use one of them-- iCab-- a fair bit.
Secondly, there is no "monopoly" to protect. You're using that word because it has an emotional impact, when in reality, its like saying you have a monopoly on your home. The iOS is Apple's product, for it to be a "monopoly" there'd have to be no android and no Windows phone.
FWIW, The post you're responding to has been heavily down voted, as are any posts which talk about Apple that do not bash them. I've had posts that stated simple facts- not even taking a personal position- and linking to an authoritative source to back up that fact, down voted to oblivion. On HN, if you're not an Apple basher, you get down voted constantly.
I look at simple facts. Firstly, Firefox or any other browser which uses its own JavaScript engine can't be ported to iOS due to license ban. You don't consider it uncompetitive behavior given that browsers are a very competitive field in general? Well, I do. Secondly, Apple of course can argue that it's not a monopolistic thing in the global sense, since there are non Apple OSes around which don't enforce draconian restrictions. And it most probably can even work in court, to dodge possible antitrust inquires. Yet, it wasn't all that so good for Apple, and they removed some restrictions from their SDK to avoid some of these problems (it's slightly better now). I'm sure their lawyers are trying to find the edge there. If you don't like the term "monopolistic practice" because of those nuances, you can call it anticompetitive practice, fine with me.
Right, Apple has taken actions that are clearly in the consumers best interests, and you're choosing to see it in a light which allows you to characterize Apple as evil. That's the facts, Jack.
Banning 3rd party browser engines is not even close to being 'clearly' in the best interest of the consumer. Neither is preventing the sideloading of apps. Those are in Apple's best interests because Apple does whats good for Apple first, before it does whats good for the consumer.
That's how most businesses work and I doubt you'd find anyone who disagrees that this is how Apple works.
If you're worried about downvotes (You're not in the gray so I don't think you have that many), perhaps I can offer the suggestion that they are because your definition of 'fact' has been, uh, rather generously deformed?
"Clearly" claim isn't convincing here. Apple says those bans are in consumers interest. Others say they are really in Apple's interest. You can probably find arguments for both. I personally see it as a second case, because it's against me as a consumer who wants to use other browsers for example.
Can't developers load their own apps directly onto their own device, without going through the App Store approval process? I think Apple even provides a mechanism for corporations to deploy private apps directly to large numbers of iOS devices, without traversing the App Store.
>That's simply untrue. Many apps have been blocked from the iPhone apps store that were neither "porn" nor malware.
There have been a few mistakes, but I'm not aware of any apps that wouldn't fit into those categories. I consider apps that trick users, or which use undocumented APIs to be malware.
Apps that are offensive, such as gay bashing apps, etc, have been blocked, this is true, though I put that under the "porn" label even though it isn't porn. What's the broader word for "apps that many people might find inappropriate or offensive"?
> could still allow side-loaded apps for those who wish to use them.
As I pointed out, Apple has gone out of their way to create a method for "side loading" apps. They provided a way to create apps in javascript, which have access to much of the native hardware, you can install it thru the web, with a custom app icon and run them offline.
> Instead they block sideloaded apps to ensure complete control of the iOS ecosystem
On the contrary, as I mentioned there is a method to install apps completely out of Apple's control. (in fact, you can do this also with native apps as well using the adhoc distribution method.)
>and render impossible any kind of credible competing app store (like the Amazon App store) on iOS.
Yep. And this has proven also to be in consumers best interest. Look at all the dozens of "App Stores" that have sprung up since the real AppStore was created? Every single one of them sucks, and sucks really hard. Its like they aren't even trying.
Massive amounts of malware are being distributed via, at least the android marketplace, if not Amazon as well.
Why should Apple support third parties making the phone suck?
> Massive amounts of malware are being distributed via, at least the android marketplace, if not Amazon as well.
Amazon's app store is curated exactly like Apple's, so if there is malware in the Amazon's store then the model must be broken.
Besides, as I mentioned, I don't have a problem with Apple curating their app store. I think it's great. A nice mall like shopping experience. I do have a problem with them not allowing side-loading for those more advanced users who would like to side-load apps. IMHO, it seems to me like 90% of the reasons people Jailbrake their IOS devices are things that would be available without Jailbraking if side loading were allowed.
> On the contrary, as I mentioned there is a method to install apps completely out of Apple's control. (in fact, you can do this also with native apps as well using the adhoc distribution method.)
That's rather a bullshit cop-out to claim than web-apps or an "Adhoc" method that's limited to 100 users are either viable alternatives to side-loading.
That sounds like an heck of a lot of extra work just to deal with Microsoft's anti-piracy activation system. IMHO, your "answer" just reinforces the original author's point. Why should legitimate paying customers have to deal with all of these workaround and annoyances? Why should legitimate customers have to endure being treated like potential criminals? Especially when these activation systems aren't stopping the pirates!!!!!!!
Having to re-install the OS because of virus issues, etc. is NOT usual and shouldn't be punished by forcing the user to go through some stupid activation system.
Having to re-activate because of hardware upgrades (new motherboard, etc) is also not unusual. Again, I don't see why a PAYING customer should be be punished by forcing the user to go through some stupid activation system, when pirates don't have to deal with the activation system.
Just because the activation system hasn't negatively affected you doesn't mean it hasn't negatively affected many, many paying customers. Why should I get treated like shit for being a paying customer, when I could get a better user experience by pirating Windows?
Its interesting that they use Facebook as an example of the "evils" of ad supported platforms. Facebook would never, ever work as a fee-based platform. Facebook is only useful if a critical mass of your family and friends are on it, and that's just not gonna happen if it costs money.
How is Facebook different from telephone service, or USPS, or an ISP, under your analysis?
(Sidenote: USPS actually is ad-supported by bulk mail, and "heavy users subsidized" by parcel post. First class letter postage is really a nominal fee to eliminate DOS and DDOS attacks. )
All of those offered, at the time they appeared, a completely new service that had essentially zero competition, and have become entrenched since then (can you even e.g. get a job without a phone number?). Not to mention that the USPS is mandated by law to exist, so it can hardly be compared with Facebook.
Facebook never offered anything so revolutionary. It's just a well put together implementation of something that was already possible.
I can send a letter or a package to my grandma via USPS without her having to pay any subscription to USPS or "sign up" for USPS in any way.
Now, the early days of the telephone system might have been a better comparison to use in your argument than USPS. But I think it could be easily argued that the early telephone offered something much more unique for it's time than Facebook does.
I doubt it's inevitable. The Movie Tavern is a chain with a similar concept. Food, beer, etc. served with the movie. They've got a location here in Denver that I rather like. Not sure exactly how long it's been around but I've been going there several years and they've managed to keep it pretty clean and nice. I like taking my kids to movies there. They get shakes, I get beer. We all have a good time.
I think this is great! I've got no problem with reasonable and discrete ads, particular if it helps support sites I use and like. I'd prefer not to have to run an ad blocker at all, but frankly I've been forced into by the number of obnoxious ads out there. My personal pet peeve are ads that play music, sound or video. Damn it, I don't need the tab I loaded in the background to suddenly start blaring some obnoxious ad pitch at me! :-(
I'd like to see some references to this supposed "growing body of knowledge", because it sounds like the kind of complete BS put out by anti-porn religious zealots.
As a society we need to move past this ridiculous idea that the enjoyment of sex, including sexual fantasization and pornography, are something to be ashamed of or feared. Sex and porn are normal parts of a healthy, adult sexuality.
A lot of the research, at least that I'm familiar with, actually comes a bit more from the left, generally pro-sex but skeptical of (at least some kinds of) porn, with the arguments being that porn tends to promote unrealistic expectations and a certain sort of attitude towards women, which get in the way of forming healthy real-world sexual relationships.
I'm not sure how solid any of the conclusions are, though, and I don't know what the ED research would be referring to. Here's one (slightly dated) meta-analysis that does find some association with aggression, especially following watching porn that involves violence: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995....
> ... porn [is a normal part] of a healthy, adult sexuality
This is the kind of statement that should really be carefully evaluated. Smoking was "normal" once, too, along with many other unsavory bits of culture we have now moved on from.
I followed your link and could not find any studies cited in the article that back up the claims made (not saying there aren't any, just that I couldn't find any in the article). Most of it hinges on a self reported survey conducted once in Italy.
Basically, show some solid evidence. Otherwise it would seem that you are taking a moral position on this, not a scientific one.
I think the the "normalcy" of smoking is much more similar to how the suppression and shaming of normal sexuality was, until relatively recently, the norm in modern western civilization.
IMHO, the article you linked to is about as enlightening as an article saying that overindulgence in cakes and cookies is harmful. Well duh! In normal, moderate consumption both cakes, cookies, and porn are completely normal and healthy.
Wow! What a horribly shitty attitude. If your "average programmer" isn't spending their every waking moment at work they're not a good programmer?!? Employers with attitudes like that deserve a serious atomic kick in the balls.