Tablets • Hacker News Board

Re: Tablets

#241

Post by redrobot5050 » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 6:12 PM UTC

recoiledsnake wrote: post #237

sunbash wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - Apple is a business, and it strives to make money - should it not??? The fact that they have realized that great user experience (which MS is also now making a priority-office 2007-10 is a perfect example)is a form of added value that consumers will pay heavily for is simply a testament to Apple's leadership (NOT just jobs!). Having an unbelievably talented marketing team doesn't hurt either. My question is…

Also disturbing is the fact that Apple is sitting on a pile of $50 billion in cash while the actual Foxconn workers in China who make iPhones have very bad working conditions and pay. Cmon Apple, a few dollars go a long way in China.

Apple actually pays a subsidy to Foxconn workers above and beyond the wage being paid to them by Foxconn, based on a device's profitability. That being said, the assembly workers manufacturing the iPhone 4 and iPad are the highest paid among all Foxconn's laborers.

If the workers were not happy with their workplace and conditions, they are free to leave, or even better, organize a labor union.

Also, be advised the GE could also pay their chinese laborers a bit more, if you would be willing to pay more for your microwave, you water heater, your light bulbs, your cookware, etc. It's not going to happen. Let China enjoy being the manufacturing capital of the world while we still have fossil fuels, k?

Re: Tablets

#242

Post by redrobot5050 » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 6:13 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #169

edw519 wrote: post #9

Developers have used the accelerometer in ways Apple could never have imagined. That sentence is one instance of this sentence: Developers have used in ways could never have imagined. What better argument for open standards, APIs, and community cooperation?

Developers have used the accelerometer in ways Apple could never have imagined. Also: Developers have used the accelerometer in ways Apple would never approve of. These apps we don't get to see. At least not yet.

[citation needed]

After having two jailbroken iPhones, I have to say, I didn't really see any killer accelerometer apps in Rock or Cydia.

Re: Tablets

#243

Post by redrobot5050 » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 6:18 PM UTC

mitjak wrote: post #196

replicatorblog wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has Apple shut down apps in the store? There was the purge of bikini pic apps and the Google Voice issues, but I can't think of another example of good, useful apps being pulled out of the store capriciously.

Why isn't Google Voice a good example of a good useful app? I wouldn't mind GV at all. Neither would I mind Grooveshark, for instance.

Shut down an app in the store implies they pulled the app or activated their over the air kill switch.

Google Voice was rejected. It was never in the store. (Although, it is now.)

Re: Tablets

#244

Post by natep » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 6:19 PM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #175

natep wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the "X can be used for bad" argument you put forward is one that could be used against any advance in technology, with or without open standards or APIs. And your firewall example is not relevant. Hackers aren't using firewalls against the companies that employ them, they are circumventing the firewalls. What you said is more like "people can climb over fences easily, so we should stop building them around o…

Yes, and "X can be used for bad" would be as weak as "X can be used for good" is weak in favour of something. My example is relevant because it directly counters edw519's implicit claim that "if an idea can be used in surprising ways, that is good" by citing open network connections as an example of something used in surprising ways which are bad, and our opposition to that by using a "not open" stance as the agreed…

I think that this argument is much stronger than your original one, and in fact, one that I would make myself. Although I still don't see how it helps your firewall example, because I can't understand how circumventing a firewall can be considered "using it in a surprising way."

Actually, on rereading your original comment, I think I misunderstood that paragraph. The exact wording is still very confusing to me, but what I think you were trying to say is that edw519's implicit argument (for all X, X should be open because it can be used in surprising ways) can be applied to network connections, where network connections are the X. I thought you meant that firewalls were the X, and that idea is what I was arguing against.

Re: Tablets

#245

Post by Chris_Newton » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 6:30 PM UTC

johnthedebs wrote: post #213

Chris_Newton wrote: post #154

> Many if not most of the special-purpose objects around us are going to be replaced by apps running on tablets. I respectfully disagree. The trend for specialised vs. generalised devices seems to go in cycles over a period of a few years, in a similar way to the classic thick vs. thin client cycle. Consider games consoles vs. gaming on PCs, the iPod vs. mobile phones with media storage, etc. Neither extreme is ever…

I think you make a good argument, but miss the mark on one important point. The specialization/generalization you're talking about seems to apply to apps, not the devices themselves. Devices like the iPhone and iPad replace a lot of things; the examples of glasses really wasn't a strong one. Consider this list of things being replaced: phone, mp3 player, GPS, maps, compass, books, wrist watch, stop watch, alarm, phot…

If I were to pick a word for what is generic, I think I would choose "platform". As I see it, the distinction is not really about either a particular device or a particular app, it's about whether the combination of hardware and software is dedicated to a specific purpose, or whether it provides a foundation with a range of specific capabilities but relying on another layer of software on top to provide end user functionality, which is where things like Web or mobile apps come in.

In terms of handheld/mobile devices, I suspect you're being a little optimistic with your list of dedicated tools that can be replaced effectively by building on the more general platform.

For example, digital photo frames are great, but you probably have several of them around your home if you use them. Those devices don't each need to come with an accelerometer, a GPS system, and audio connectors, and all those useless (in this context) extras push up the cost.

Books are an interesting case, where I can see technology improving and converging to the point where tablets really do take over, but I expect it will be quite some time before this becomes the norm. I wouldn't be surprised to see a passive, full colour, high resolution screen inside the next five years, but there is much more to this issue than just the technology. I personally believe that reconciling the various commercial, social, logistical and ethical issues is going to be the hard part, and a lot of these probably won't even enter popular debate until the tech is ready to do the job.

Perhaps the underlying theme here is that even if the technology in a mobile device is capable of replacing many other tools, whether it can do so effectively is a different question, and one that has to take into account factors like cost-effectiveness as well as techhnical capability.

Re: Tablets

#246

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 6:54 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #225

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you can do that, users will love it and buy your product. I'm trying now to remember a story relayed here about a company who developed a product that bested Apple, Apple considered buying them/it but the negotiator dropped the ball or something and then Apple wiped them out by besting them. Anyway, if you beat Apple then they'll either lock you out (why handicap it if they'd let you carry on) or integrate your i…

You could be referring to the story about how Panic's Audion nearly became the basis of iTunes, rather than Soundjam which they bought instead, though it is quite an old story. http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/

Yup, that was it (extract):

    "Hi Steve, it's Cabel, from Panic."

    "Oh, hey Cabel! Nice to meet you. So tell me, what'd you think of iTunes?"

    "Well, I think it looks great! You guys have done a great job with it. But, you know, I still feel we'll do all-right with Audion."

    "Oh, really? That's interesting, because honestly? I don't think you guys have a chance."

Re: Tablets

#247

Post by farmerbuzz » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 7:23 PM UTC

gamble wrote: post #239

recoiledsnake wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you mean if OS X won instead of Windows, there would be more competitors, right? Nope, there would be even less, because Apple makes it's own hardware, it would have killed off a lot of hardware companies, AMD, ATI being big examples. And Apple is going to kill off so many hardware companies because if it wins like Windows, it's going to be the sole arbitrator of who gets to build hardware for it. All MS wanted wa…

BS. MS cared very, very much about what software you ran. Remember Netscape? Borland? Microsoft J++? They put pressure on OEMs not to ship Netscape that make anything Apple's done with iOS pale in comparison. It may be hard to appreciate today, but in the 90's you couldn't start a software company without a ready answer for how you were going to survive if MS decided they had to kill your product to protect the Windo…

There is a difference between competing in a business environment and limiting what your customers can do with your product. Although competition may indirectly determine what customers can do (by destroying businesses that may have created software they wanted) it is different from directly controlling what customers can do the way Apple does.

Re: Tablets

#248

Post by farmerbuzz » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 7:41 PM UTC

dejb wrote: post #157

replicatorblog wrote: post #17

This is absolutely right. My company been working on a medical device accessory for the iPhone and the possibilities the "tablet" form factor are amazing. Lower Cost Structure - In our industry (diabetes) you give away hardware to get ongoing disposable revenue. This hardware is expensive to produce and develop. Plus you spend a lot of effort on areas that don't add much value e.g. reinventing the wheel re: display d…

Doesn't it concern you that Apple could shut you down at any stage? They could easily just decide that your app isn't suitable for their store. This would be especially true for industrial applications where there might be good reasons to want to step outside their TOS or guidelines.

The original author appears to be using an iPhone for prototyping, and clearly states that it is the "tablet form factor" that is making things so interesting. Even if they were using an iPhone there would be no point to putting the software on the app store as it would be useless without the appropriate hardware. (Edit: Just noticed author's latest post that yes they will distribute through the app store and sell an accessory. I stand corrected.)

In general, yes it is a bad idea to use consumer technology for devices with the sort of lifetime you find in the medical industry (often up to 10 years). Because of the high levels of regulation and testing, its not cheap to swap out a component for something equivalent when a manufacturer stops producing the one you originally designed and tested your system with.

Re: Tablets

#249

Post by gamble » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 8:04 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #124

alanthonyc wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the difference: You don't have to use any Apple device if you don't want to. That choice is yours. I spent many years working in places where you had to use Microsoft products. There was no choice. Microsoft didn't care what you put on your machine because all they care about is making money selling you stuff.

You don't have to use Microsoft if you don't want to either -- just don't work somewhere that requires MS products. Do you suppose that there aren't companies where using Apple products is required? There are.

That's a bit pat considering that 95% of workplaces use Windows.

Re: Tablets

#250

Post by cookiecaper » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 8:41 PM UTC

extension wrote: post #235

encoderer wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple wouldn't be in existence without the billions it made volume selling to schools. From grammar school to graduate school I was forced to use an Apple/Mac. Your comment, while mostly fiction IMO, does have a nice storyline.

Were you forced to buy one because your school had one? Was the school forced to buy them so they could interoperate with some other system?

Why do you keep insisting that people are "forced" to buy these things? Nobody has been forced to buy Microsoft. If your job required a Microsoft product, and you didn't want to buy Microsoft products, you could find a new job. You were not forced to buy from Microsoft any more than anyone has been "forced" to buy from Apple.

I've known plenty of people whose jobs didn't even require the use of a computer; if you are so picky about the software you use, perhaps you could consider a line of work that doesn't involve much computer usage.