IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak • Hacker News Board

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#61

Post by stcredzero » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 9:03 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #12

stcredzero wrote: post #2

Some sort of hacking sandbox is needed for the iPad. Something like Hypercard would be dandy. Then again, aren't web apps already available? Safari is a very good Javascript platform. Maybe an iPad version of iWeb with a "local server" and some sort of app publishing/sharing via Mobile Me? Actually the beauty of this approach, is that a 3rd party could come out with this quickly, using App Engine or Amazon as a back…

Personally I'm getting tired of hearing about how Javascript-enabled web apps are good enough. No, they aren't. Yeah, it's exciting that Quake2 runs in Chrome/Safari, it really is. But in 95/96 I was participating in demo-scenes, with graphics that weren't accelerated by the GPU, in 386 real-mode, and it was a lot easier and a lot more exciting (demos that got distributed by a local PC magazine, having as target more…

Personally I'm getting tired of hearing about how Javascript-enabled web apps are good enough. No, they aren't.

To play on a level field with native apps? No. Wrong discussion! What about for the same sort of tinkerer/hobbyist who wrote Hypercard stacks? Seems to me, with a little hosting and a few tools, Javascript would be dandy!

(And as for commercial apps on Hypercard -- hey, you're free to try. But I'm not talking about targeting those folks.)

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#62

Post by neilk » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 9:07 PM UTC

This article is basically fluff. It is trying to turn Apple's evolving business strategies into some sort of personality conflict. One that guys like Woz probably wouldn't acknowledge is real.

From the moment they were selling real products and not kits, Apple has always wanted to control every aspect of the computing experience. For a while, at Apple, it was considered heresy to be an "Open Mac" supporter -- that is, you thought it was okay to allow third party companies to produce peripherals like disk drives or printers. It was only around '87 or so that the idea of an expandable Mac saw the light of day (the Macintosh II) and that product line slowly petered out in the 90s.

People on this thread are suggesting that the OS was hackable with a floppy disk out of some desire to be friendly to tinkerers. Don't be silly. It was that way because there was no other conceivable alternative for software distribution.

If we disregard Apple's mid-90s confusions it's been on a steady road towards the iPad since the beginning, in rhetoric if not always in reality.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#63

Post by jodrellblank » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 9:07 PM UTC

plinkplonk wrote: post #4

"Wozniak's design was open and decentralized in ways that still define those concepts in the computing industries. The original Apple had a hood, and as with a car, the owner could open it up and get at the guts of the machine. Although it was a fully assembled device, not a kit like earlier PC products, Apple owners were encouraged to tinker with the innards of Wozniak's machine—to soup it up, make it faster, add fe…

* I would love to see something built around an ARM processor for e.g. but building hardware is a lot tougher than in Woz's days*

indeed, the days you could buy four microswitches and some wood and have a joystick that worked as well as one from the shops are long gone, yet people still compare the iPad to a >30 year old computer which came with schematic diagrams.

What would most computer hobbyists do with an iPad schematics? Why would you buy an open ipad chassis? Did you buy an OpenMoko phone?

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#64

Post by CoryMathews » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 9:21 PM UTC

houseabsolute wrote: post #47

abstractbill wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android gained 5.2% of the US smartphone market between December 2009 and February 2010, while the iPhone lost 0.1% ( http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=9184 ). Of course I'm not going to declare the iPhone a failure - it's clearly done very well. But I think it's still a little early to call it a winner.

In all likelihood both will continue to be part of the mobile ecosystem for some time, or until Google gets tired of throwing money at the problem. But as I said to another responder, the iPhone is one device on one carrier per country, and Android is many devices on all carriers. They are hardly on equal footing for a purely numerical battle for superiority, but still iPhone is winning.

"They are hardly on equal footing for a purely numerical battle for superiority"

Thats Apples choice. Those chose to lock in with AT&T they could have not locked in and sold many MANY more. So yes it equal if anything its less equal for the android because it came in later.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#65

Post by xiaoma » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 9:27 PM UTC

crux wrote: post #41

david927 wrote: post #26

Woz has always about being open and modular and extensible. Jobs has always been about the opposite -- and for good reason; the early Macs were typically more stable and functioned better simply because of that lock-in. But history has played this over and over again, and Woz always wins. Vendors work out standards; the user experience consolidates. If you give people the freedom and trust them, they'll work it out.…

What's with this constant invoking of the 'faithful'? I work at a place that sells the iPad and I've had a lot of people ask me about it. The people who are buying the iPad aren't exactly fanboys, who have been slavering over anything that Apple would put out. They're normal folks. A lot of them don't know any real specifics about the iPad, but they have the feeling that it would really be more enjoyable to use than…

The iPhone is really open and functional compared to the phones that preceded it. Just downloading a ringtone for most prior phones was more expensive than full-fledged games on the iPhone. The app store is far from perfect, but it's a very open market compared to anything I've seen out of Nokia or any of the Japanese handset makers.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#66

Post by hammerdr » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 9:44 PM UTC

dkersten wrote: post #60

It might overrun Sony and Microsoft in computer gaming I don't understand.. how? At best, I see it appealing to a small niche gaming market, but as it stands, I can't see how it would overrun Sony or Microsoft - for example, the iPad is hugely underpowered compared to todays popular gaming machines and you would definitely need to couple it with some other input devices, like keyboard & mouse or gamepads, since multi…

iPhone, smartphone and iPad gaming isn't going to be what console or PC gamers are going to expect. However, we're not talking about those type of people buying this device.

For example, Brickbreaker has been played by over 50 million people while COD: Modern Warfare 2 has only been played by 15 million.

These type of games (that hardcore gamers would consider silly and frivolous) are going to be the dominant games in the marketplace.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#67

Post by steveklabnik » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 9:45 PM UTC

CoryMathews wrote: post #64

houseabsolute wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all likelihood both will continue to be part of the mobile ecosystem for some time, or until Google gets tired of throwing money at the problem. But as I said to another responder, the iPhone is one device on one carrier per country, and Android is many devices on all carriers. They are hardly on equal footing for a purely numerical battle for superiority, but still iPhone is winning.

"They are hardly on equal footing for a purely numerical battle for superiority" Thats Apples choice. Those chose to lock in with AT&T they could have not locked in and sold many MANY more. So yes it equal if anything its less equal for the android because it came in later.

It's not about choices. If a phone that's available on multiple carriers doesn't sell more than a device that's on one, something is wrong.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#68

Post by jcl » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 9:47 PM UTC

Lazlo_Nibble wrote: post #59

rbanffy wrote: post #38

> Wozniak, an inveterate prankster, ran an illegal "dial-a-joke" operation "illegal"?! I am not aware it would be illegal to run such a service at that time. > the Macintosh was a radical innovation in its own right, being the first mass-produced computer to feature a "mouse" and a "desktop Lisa? Star? Although that last one was not "mass-produced", at least it came out of a factory.

At the time, you weren't allowed to hook arbitrary equipment up to the phone system -- everything had to be approved by AT&T. IIRC the hardware Woz used for his dial-a-joke setup was homebrew.

Apparently it was not homebrew; here are a couple articles saying that he rented the equipment from the phone company. So the dial-a-joke thing might have been entirely legit.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.09/woz.html

http://www.woz.org/letters/pirates/07.html

I'm guessing that when the article describes the dial-a-joke service as illegal, it's confusing it with his blue-box antics, which occurred around the same time. According to the following article (a fun read), the blue box preceded dial-a-joke; he got the inspiration for the service from a dial-a-joke line in New York that he called while demoing blue boxes to potential customers:

http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/the_merry_pranksters_of_mi...

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#69

Post by pasbesoin » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 9:53 PM UTC

glhaynes wrote: post #24

thought_alarm wrote: post #16

It's funny how so many people are suddenly mischaracterizing the Apple II or the nature of early personal computers. The very first personal computers, like the Apple II, were sold as development kits to developers/hobbyists because these were the only people who would even think to buy a personal computer in 1976 and 1977. These development kits contain all of the information one would need to create software and ha…

I almost entirely agree with your post, though I'll note that the Apple II was unique specifically because it came pre-assembled in a plastic case and was marketed to "regular people". Still, obviously most users were hobbyists, just less "hardcore" than those who assembled their own Altairs.

I thought the original Apple (Apple I) was the version that came as a kit.

Wikipedia agrees. The circuit board was complete, but the purchaser needed to "build the case".

However, to make a working computer, users still had to add a case, power supply transformers, power switch, ASCII keyboard, and composite video display

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#70

Post by fhars » Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 9:54 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #31

baguasquirrel wrote: post #27

I get this same vibe from a lot of older folks (or people who want to sound like them, all grizzled and what). True, from a hardware standpoint, Apple devices are closed. What matters today however, is that they are open devices from the perspective of a platform and web software developer. Has everyone forgot how cellphones were black boxes before the iPhone? And lets not forget that we make stuff for normal people…

Has everyone forgot how cellphones were black boxes before the iPhone? I must have forgotten that because it isn't true. On my P800 or Blackberry I could install any app, not just approved ones. (Edit: I wonder if this meme about the "cell phone dark ages" comes from the millions of people who switched from dumbphones to iPhone and thus aren't personally familiar with the actual smartphone state of the art circa 2006…

Smarphones have always been horrible. Have you ever tried to install a JavaME app that does something more useful than storing a high score on a phone? Or dealt with this symbian signing nonsense more than a year or so ago (they made it slightly better with the signing web service since then, but it is still a hassle)? You always have to cope with some certificate authority protection racket, apart from the interresting APIs. The openneess if the iPhone appstore is par for the course here...