By John Groober
- technologizer: teh future ov windowz
david worthington:
technologizer askd sum ov teh industry’s hooj brains bout wut microsoft needz 2 doez 2 keep itz operatin sistem relevant in teh yeers 2 come. der advice ranges frum merely simplifying teh interface 2 borrowing ideaz frum othr microsoft productz such as teh xbox 2 givin teh os complete reboot. heers wut they (an we) has 2 sai.
sum interestin (an widely varying) anzwrs. i liek scott rosenberg’s taek best:
microsoft ought 2 build nu, modern, stripped-down os an support teh legacy stuff in virtual masheen. call teh nu environment win instead ov windowz, suggesting nu stripped-down nimbleness. mak it clear dat teh old wurld will bees supportd 4 long tiem but not forever. dazzle peeps wif wut they can doez in nu wurld.
or jus maintain windowz in parallel. point iz, thar’s no reason y microsoft shud has wan an only wan pc desktop operatin sistem. y not 2: teh nu cool no-cruft wan; an windowz, teh establishd, familiar, chock-fol-ov-baggage-an-legacy-compatibility wan.
- dun hold ur breath waitin 4 an ipad price drop
kevin c. tofel:
mutch ov dis “wait 4 teh price drop” sentiment stems frum teh original ifone 4 gb an 8gb modelz, which debutd in late june ov 2007 4 $499 an $599, respectively. by september ov dat same yer, teh 4 gb model wuz scrapped an teh 8 gb unit droppd $200 2 $399. teh situashun generatd an early adapter uproar by lotz da — myself includd — an apple trid 2 mak gud wif $100 apple store credits 4 dose hoo paid teh highr pricez.
teh entire event tarnished apple’s luster in teh eyes ov consumerz an dis isnt company dat repeatz mistakez often.
- jonathan schwartz on patent threats frum steve jobz an bill gates
jonathan schwartz:
in 2003, aftr i unveild prototype linux desktop calld project lukingz glass, steve calld mah office 2 let me knoe teh graphical effectz wuz “stepping all ovar apple’s ip.” (ip = intellectual property = patentz, trademarkz an copyrights.) if we movd forward 2 commercialize it, “i’ll jus sue u.”
- ‘tron: legacy’ trailer
o, yez.
update: mutch bettr vershun frum teh official siet, includin downloadable 1080p quicktime.
- amazon dropz colorado residentz frum affiliates program
larry dignan:
amazon’s response 2 colorado’s state tax issue — governor bill ritter signed bill dat puts nu restricshuns an taxes on out-ov-state retailers liek amazon — has been consistent. when tings go against amazon teh retailr cuts itz affiliate programs in dat state.
- follow-up on hp’s ‘license plate domain’ urls
yesterdai, aftr linking 2 “http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/voodoo-blog/teh-hp-s-slate-device-runz-teh-complete-internets-includin-flash/ba-p/53838”, i askd wut teh deal wuz wif dat crazy servr naym. df readr hoo werkz at hp emaild:
internally iz calld somethin stupid, liek “license plate naym” or somesuch. hp it doez dat so they can physically locate servr when it goez down.
externally, u’re seein how wan department’s braindead internal policy designd 4 der convenience reduces teh convenience ov teh entire rest ov teh company (an r customerz). i’d blame randy mott (ov walmart pedigree) hoo has proven 2 bees quite napoleon (or perhapz brutus iz bettr example?) when it comez 2 turf battles, but i finks dat policy pre-dated him.
lotz da folkz internally in hp hate dose license plate external urls but thar’s nothin we can doez bout it. teh policy has been set frum on-high.
so cuz ov dictum frum teh it department, hp — wan ov teh biggest, proudest, an most successful companiez in teh history ov teh computr busines — has urls dat r cryptic, long, an ugly. whereas anyone wif, sai, tumblr akownt, can git far nicer urls 4 free.
- harmony
captivating lil html5 drawing app by ricardo cabello. werkz swell on teh ifone 2. (via federico viticci.)
- glenn fleishman on realnetworks’s dvd copying settlement
glenn fleishman, writin 4 boin boin:
realnetworks jus screwd us all by settling lawsuits in which it might has lost — but which might also has given sum nu life 2 fair use 4 digital media. teh post-realdvd wurld meanz dat unles thar’s major change 2 teh law surroundin copy protection, thar will nevr bees legal wai 2 perform legal acts ov copying or shifting protected moviez, music, an gamez.
- yair reiner on apple’s ip threats 2 rival handset makerz
filip elmr-dewitt, quoting frum report frum oppenheimer analyst yair reiner on teh behind-teh-scneez aspects ov apple’s patent suit against htc:
startin in january, apple launchd seriez ov c-level discushuns wif tier-1 handset makerz 2 underscore itz growin displeasure at seein itz ifone-relatd ip [intellectual property] infringed. teh lawsuit fild against htc thus appearz 2 bees apple’s wai ov puttin public, lawyered-up exclamation point on seriez ov blunt conversations dat has been occurrin behind closed doorz.
r checks also suggest dat thees warning shots r meaningfully disrupting teh development roadmaps 4 wud-bees ifone killers. rival software an hardware teamz r goin bak 2 teh drawing bord 2 look 4 werk-arounds. lawyers r redoubling efforts 2 gauge potenshul defensive an offensive responsez. an strategy teamz r werkin 2 chart os strategiez dat r bettr hedged.
reiner concludez dat teh effect iz goin 2 bees 2 driv wud-bees android handset makerz into teh arms ov microsoft an windowz fone 7.
- vodafone givez customr android fone loadd wif botnet an password-stealin malware
pedro bustamante:
interestingly enough, teh mariposa bot iz not teh only malware i findz on teh vodafone htc magic fone. thar’s also confiker an lineage password stealin malware. i wondr hoo’s doin qa at vodafone an htc thees dais?
in teh commentz, bustamante writez:
regardles, i dun finks dis has 2 doez wif factory settingz, but rathr wif poor qa proces ov refurbished fonez.
wan wud hope dis isnt widespread.
- wut bout dose multitouch patentz?
farhad manjoo’s piece 4 slate on apple’s patent infringement legal akshun against htc bears teh headline “apple’s multitouch lawsuit iz both dumb an dangerous”, which iz slightly odd, insofar as dat none ov teh patentz apple citd r relatd 2 multitouch.
which raisez teh queshun: y not? multitouch iz certainly teh aspect ov teh ifone usr interface dat has been most-talkd bout wif regard 2 patentz, evr since it debutd at macworld expo in 2007 an jobz flat-out bragged bout how patented it wuz. maybe teh aspects ov multitouch dat htc has addd 2 teh nexus wan dun violate teh patentz?
update: nilay patel sez none ov apple’s granted patentz cover pinch-2-zoom, which, as far as i can tell, iz teh only “multitouch” supportd on teh nexus wan. apple has pending patentz on pinch-2-zoom an othr multi-finger gesturez, but hoo knowz if they’ll bees granted.
- amazon hiring web browsr developrz
michael calore:
job posting 4 browsr engineer at lab126, teh divishun ov amazon dat develops teh kindle, indicatez teh company iz lukingz 4 somebody 2 develop “an innovative embedded web browsr” 4 consumr product. […]
teh kindle’s current browsin experience iz notably sub-par. iz gud enough 2 check ur e-mail, post 2 twittr or read wikipedia, but it doesn’t handle imagez or moar complex web appz particularly well. it certainly doesn’t liv up 2 teh same vishun ov teh mobile web bein outlined by teh ifone, or android fonez liek teh droid or nexus wan.
calore iz rite dat teh current kindle browsr iz poor, but i wondr whethr dis job openin iz 4 teh kindle. wan problem amazon wud has wif kindle armed wif gud mobile browsr iz dat it might encourage 2 mutch use ov teh browsr — existin kindles dun has wi-fi an only acces teh internets via “free” 3g networking. teh reason amazon can provide free 3g iz dat iz typically only usd 4 buyin bookz. add great browsr an i dun c how they cud afford free 3g. (maybe future kindles will bees wi-fi only?)
- teh panic status bord
if i didnt luv thees guyz i wud hate them.
- steve jobz at teh 2010 oscars
great foto by zadi diaz. (via dave winer.)
- jim dalrymple: ifone, ipad operatin sistem 2 unify wif os 4.1
jim dalrymple:
howevr, it doesn’t mak sense 4 apple 2 unify teh 2 operatin systems 4 4.0 wif teh timeline they r werkin wif. rathr, i expect apple 2 release os 4.1 in september or octobr. it will not only addres issuez wif teh 4.0 release, but also unify teh operatin systems.
jim’s expectations tend 2 bees pritee gud, 2 sai teh least.
- ★ ifone appz on teh ipad
brian x. chen at wird, on teh default ifone appz dat aren’t present on teh ipad:
but if u recall, teh ifone shipz wif sum appz dat appear 2 bees left out frum teh ipad: stockz, calculator, clock, weathr an voice memos. wut givez?
apple didnt respond 2 request 4 comment, but me willin 2 gues apple will jus stick dose appz in teh app store 4 free download, an they’ll bees teh same appz as they wuz on teh ifone. aftr all, iz unlikely thar’s mutch 2 doez wif dose particular appz 2 mak them visually speshul 4 teh ipad.
akshully, iz sort ov teh opposite problem. iz not dat apple couldn’t jus create biggr vershuns ov thees appz an has them run on teh ipad. it wasn’t technical problem, it wuz design problem. thar wuz, internally 2 apple (ov course), vershuns ov thees appz (or at least sum ov them) wif upscald ipad-sizd grafic, but otherwize teh same ui an layout as teh ifone vershuns. endz up dat jus blowing up ifone appz 2 fill teh ipad screen lookz an feelz weird, even if u use highr-resolushun grafic so dat nothin lookz pixelated. so they wuz scrapped by u-knoe-hoo. perhapz they’ll appear on teh ipad in sum re-imagined form dis summer wif os 4.0, but when teh ipad shipz next month, thar won’t bees vershuns ov thees appz. at least dat’s teh story i has herd frum few well-informd lil birdies.
(thar iz, alas, no seekret “widget” mode 4 ipad in os 3.2, eithr.)
sum (maybe even most?) ifone gamez will werk well as-iz, on teh ipad. not jus technically, but in termz ov bein fun an feelin rite. but non-game ifone appz dat r jus upscald on teh ipad r goin 2 feelz weird. an teh run teh app in lil ifone-sizd rectangle in teh middle ov an otherwize black screen mode iz even weirder, i finks. 3.5-inch screen iz jus totally different than 10-inch screen.
on teh whole, iz akshully rathr un-apple-liek dat they’re even allowin ifone appz 2 run unmodified on teh ipad. iz huge compatibility win, ov course: an instant markit ov thousandz an thousandz ov titlez. given teh runaway succes ov teh app store an teh fundamental technical similarities tween teh ifone an ipad, iz teh sort ov decishun dat most companiez wouldn’t even finks twice bout. but iz undeniably sub-optimal usr experience. ifone appz on teh ipad r “good enough” ting, not an “exactly rite” ting. most companiez — teh onez dat wouldn’t even c it as tough decishun whethr 2 allow ifone appz 2 run on teh ipad — settle 4 “good enough” all teh tiem. apple, on teh othr hand, usually goez 4 “exactly rite”.
i’ll go so far as 2 predict dat by teh tiem mondai april 5 rolls around, it’ll already bees an establishd meme dat non-ipad-optimizd ifone appz r 2 teh ipad wut classic appz wuz 2 mac os x — somethin u’ll mak doez wif “for nao” but can’t wait 2 abandon 4 teh real ting.
me not sayin iz mistake dat apple iz allowin teh ipad 2 run ifone appz. me jus sayin dat teh ipad iz not hooj ifone.
- download squad: ‘microsoft set 2 destroy apple in evry gamez market’
o, u thot teh gaming newz wuz all sunshine an roses 4 apple todai? not so, reportz sebastian anthony at download squad:
apple, wif itz locked-down, isolatd sandbox iz in trouble. doez game developrz has any reason 2 continue werkin on gamez 4 teh ifone or ipad nao dat microsoft iz offerin so mutch moar? […]
can apple rly c themselvez competin, wif minuscule desktop markit share an 25% ov teh smartfone sector? steve jobz has announcd apple’s intent 2 moov into mobile gaming, but can u rly c developrz siding wif teh ifone when windowz fone 7 iz jus around teh corner?
- nice presentashun frum cameron daigle on ipad ui design
answerin teh queshun, “is teh ipad jus hooj ifone?” in teh negative. luv dis bit bout teh lack ov hoverin:
heers y dis secshun iz bout controlz: evry dai, ur cursor protects u frum unclear ui. it helpfully turnz into text cursor as u hover ovar textboxes, or hand as u hover ovar link or akshun item.
ipad has no such ting. bad ui will stick out liek sore thumb, both in appz an on websiets. ur tappable areas had bettr look tappable. ur controlz had bettr look controllable.
- at&t’s crummy android fone
at&t’s furst android fone, teh motorola backflip, shipz wif an outdated vershun ov teh os (1.5; current vershun iz 2.1) an comez wif bunch ov at&t-addd appz dat can’t bees deleted. they’d doez teh same wif teh ifone if it wuz up 2 them.
- nu promo video frum hp an adobe on upcomin ‘slate device’
hp iz bankin heavily on teh inclusion ov flash 2 bees sellin point vs. teh ipad. mah gut feelin iz dat flash will prove irrelevant, an dat dis ting will go nowhere simply cuz windowz 7 iz terribly suitd 2 touchscreen tablet.
(an wut in teh wurld iz teh deal wif teh crazy servr naym in hp’s weblog urls?)
- mediagazer
nu siet frum gabe rivera: “mediagazer iz 2 media as techmeme iz 2 tech.”
- gdc summit devoted entirely 2 ifone os gaming
speakin ov game-relatd apple newz.
- valve announces dat itz gamez an steam survis r comin 2 teh mac
hooj newz 4 teh mac as game platform:
if playerz already own teh pc vershuns ov valve gamez, they’ll git mac vershuns at no extra charge thru feachur calld steam play. […] by usin teh steam cloud feachur dat teh company introducd in 2008, playerz can save in-progres gamez online, then call up dose saved gamez no mattr which vershun they’re playin. if u’re playin haf-life 2 on ur home pc but then hed out on teh road wif ur macbook, u can continue ur game-in-progres.
- teh david foster wallace audio project
interviewz, readings, an moar, “lovingly collected by ryan walsh in early 2009”. iz gold mine.
- carmi levy’s conspiracy theory regardin apple’s removal ov wi-fi scanning appz frum teh app store
he thinks iz scam 2 mak it hardr 4 ifone (an soon, ipad) ownerz 2 use wi-fi, so dat they instead use 3g an run up survis chargez. dis iz nutty. teh carriers — at&t especially — rly doez wants ifone ownerz 2 use wi-fi. at&t ceo randall stefenson iz practically begging ipad userz 2 use wi-fi.
plus, teh ifone has built-in featurez 4 findin open wi-fi networks, rite thar in teh settingz app. by default it even letz u knoe when it finds an open netwerk. it boggles teh mind dat anyone wud finks thar’s somethin fishy bout thees appz bein removd.
- cameron moll on hims weblog redesign
he’s vary kind 2 state dat df wuz an inspirashun. i stole teh intermingled short-linkz-an-longr-articlez format frum kottke, though.
- nu york tiems profile on pandora an founder tim westergren
saved, perhapz, by teh ifone. they turnd profit last yer an expect $100 million in revenue dis yer.
- ‘logorama’
winnr ov teh oscar 4 best short film. if u luv profanity, ultra violence, an logos, u’re goin 2 enjoy dis as mutch as i did. (via kottke.)
- ‘the hurt locker’ winz best picture; kathryn bigelow furst woman 2 win best director
roger ebert:
bigelow did it, i bleev, cuz she quite simply made teh best film: teh tension generatd by teh film wuz extraordinary. yez, situashuns involving defusing bombs r common enough, but somehow bigelow made teh bomb scneez human, not technical. perhapz dat wuz teh woman in her?
i’d sai they pritee mutch got it rite wif teh winnerz dis yer. teh tribute 2 john hughez wuz vary nice.
(teh hurt locker wuz shot on 16mm film; when wuz teh last best picture winnr (or even nominee?) dat wuz shot on 16mm? update: leaving las vegas?)
- edward tufte presidenshul appointment
prezident obama has appointed edward tufte 2 teh recovery independent advisory panel, “whose job iz 2 track an explain $787 billion in recovery stimulus funds”. outstandin.
- apple’s ipad commershul frum teh oscars
jus liek wif apple’s ifone commershuls, teh ad focuses on how teh device akshully lookz an werkz an wut it can doez. so gud.
- [sponsor] dailydeeds
dailydeeds iz teh simplest nu wai 2 keep lazr focusd on ur everyday goals. launch dailydeeds on ur ifone or ipod touch an set sum nu habits 4 yourself: 30 minutez sketchin, taek 10 fotos, practice guitar, u naym it. tings u tend not 2 doez, but tings u wants 2 doez — an doez often.
each dai u pull off task, jus tap teh box an ovar tiem dailydeeds conjures up visual history 4 u. no fuss, hanz down teh easiest solushun evr 4 everyday diary keepin. 4 moar detailz stop by r siet or click thru 2 teh app store 4 an instant download.
- ken fisher ov ars technica on how ad blockers hurt revenue
siet liek ars, wif tech-savvy audience, iz teh hardest hit. fisher claimz 40 persent ov ars readerz r blocking der adz, an pointz out dat lotz da readerz runnin ad blockers aren’t even aware dat they’re costing siets money:
thar iz an oft-statd misconception dat if usr nevr clicks on adz, then blocking them won’t hurt siet financially. dis iz wrong. most siets, at least siets teh size ov ours, r paid on per view basis.
i has no easy anzwr, but i will point out dat thar’s no inherent reason y adz has 2 bees somethin peeps r tempted 2 block. iz not enough 2 ask readerz not 2 block adz — u’ve got 2 werk hard at providin adz dat readerz akshully enjoy, or at least aren’t tempted 2 block.
update: thar’s prisoners’ dilemma problem wif ad blockers, wer it doesn’t mattr if wan siet showz reasonable adz if otherz show crap adz, cuz dose crap adz will driv userz 2 install ad-blocking software, an ad-blocking software casts wide net an blockz as mutch as it can. iz unlikely dat most ad-blocker-usin ars readerz installd der ad-blocker cuz ov teh adz on ars technica.
- dis iz not hard 2 understand
bill ray 4 teh registr, on teh wi-fi scanning appz removd frum teh app store last week:
wi-fi detection iz somethin ov niche: thar wuz nevr moar than handful ov such applicashuns in itunez. but nao even dose has vanished as apple decidd they wuz usin “private framework”, an has pulld them off teh shelves without explanashun or apology. […]
“we receivd vary unfortunate email todai frum apple stating dat wifi wer has been removd frum sale on teh app store 4 usin private frameworks 2 acces wireless informashun,” explainz wan developr, though apple has apparently declined 2 explain egsaktly wut rule teh scanning applicashuns r breaking.
uh, teh rule against usin private frameworks?
update: wurth notin dat dis iz teh same bill ray hoo, in decembr 2006, month b4 teh ifone wuz unveild, wrote “y teh apple fone will fail, an fail badly”.
- palm introducez webos plugin development kit
they call it “plugin development kit”, but wut it rly meanz iz dat developrz can rite compild c/c++ appz 4 webos nao. an accordin 2 john paczkowski:
perhapz moar important, teh pdk will allow developrz 2 rewrite mobile appz creatd 4 othr platformz 2 run on webos wif minimal modification. appz dat currently run on apple’s ifone, 4 example, can bees portd ovar in mattr ov dais, sourcez close 2 teh company tell me, an they dun rly suffr any degradation in performance.
i can only assume dat dis iz in reference 2 gamez wif cross-platform cores, not utility-type appz dat r cocoa touch thru-an-thru.
- ‘60 days’
i stand corrected regardin teh original expectations 4 ipad availability worldwide. durin teh ipad introducshun event last month, teh slide stating dat teh wi-fi modelz wud bees available in “60 dais” also includd dis underneath: “worldwide availability ov wifi modelz”.
- teh mac sale bundle
speakin ov df rss fed sponsorships, i’d liek 2 thank dis week’s sponsor, teh mac sale. they’ve got terrific bundle ov mac appz 4 sale thru march 15 4 jus $49.99. teh bundle includez: macgourmet deluxe, videoconverter pro, supercard, shovebox, minione racing, pathfinder, storymill, inkbook, slideshow, an finance 6. all 10 appz, jus $49.99.
(teh mac sale iz collaborashun tween maczot an teh escapers, makerz ov teh flux web design app.)
- jason snell on google’s nexus wan
speakin ov jason snell, he’s got thoughtful look at teh nexus wan an android, particularly in comparison 2 teh ifone.
- ★ attenshun iz teh real resource
jason snell — editorial director at macworld — wrote an interestin piece on hims personal siet regardin fol-text rss feeds, prompted by merlin mann’s piece last week regardin teh atlantic.
snell writez:
rss doesn’t generate revenue directly. thar r adz in rss, sure, but they’re cheap an lousy an dun has remotely teh return as adz on web pagez. teh queshun iz, if u publish all ur content in rss, doez teh resulting drop in traffic git offset by teh fringe benefitz? in teh mind ov sum — presumably includin merlin mann an john groober — u cud lose small percentage ov tech-savvy peeps, but dose peeps tend 2 bees teh onez hoo pas linkz around 2 frenz an on der blogs an on twittr, an lot ov dose peeps will come 2 ur web siet frum thar, so in teh end iz net benefit. plus, moar peeps will care bout u an ur brand an dat’s gud ting.
i agree, dat’s gud. i wish someone cud cite sum studies dat prove dat givin away ur fol-text rss doesn’t hurt traffic, but helpz it.
it shud go without sayin dat wut werkz 4 me her at darin fireball, as wan-man show, cud well not werk (or werk nearly as well) 4 large operashun wif fol editorial staff such as macworld. but: df’s rss fed, which containz teh fol content ov teh siet, not only generatez money directly, but has grown 2 become teh single largest source ov revenue on teh siet.
teh adz in most sponsored rss feeds r inded cheap an lousy. teh adz in df’s rss fed r neithr. they’re pricd at premium, an has attracted (if i doez sai so myself) premium sponsors.
wut iz “traffic”? i suspect snell iz talkin bout paeg views. when someone loads web paeg in der browsr, dat’s paeg view. most advertisin on teh web (but not all) iz sold usin paeg views as teh metric — advertiserz pay an agred-upon amount 4 evry thousand paeg views on which der ad appearz.
when i switchd df’s free public rss fed 2 fol-content in august 2007, df’s web paeg views had been growin steadily month-2-month. aftr teh switch, web paeg views wuz stagnant, wif no growth, 4 bout yer. (if anythin, they went down in teh furst few monthz.) but readership clearly continud 2 grow: subscriberz 2 teh fed skyrocketed. an, bout yer ago, even web paeg views startd growin significantly once again — goin frum lil ovar wan million per month 2 lil ovar 2 million per month.
if u’ve got model wer revenue iz tied only 2 web paeg views, switchin 2 fol-content rss feeds will hurt, at least in teh short term. teh problem, i sai, isnt wif fol-content rss feeds, but rathr wif busines model dat hinges solely on web paeg views. teh preshus commodity dat we, as publisherz, has 2 offr advertiserz iz teh attenshun ov r readerz. web paeg views r terribly inaccurate, if not outright misleadin, metric 4 attenshun. subscriberz 2 fol-content rss fed r among teh readerz paying teh most attenshun, but generate among teh least web paeg views.
readr askin 4 fol-content rss fed iz readr hoo wantz 2 pay moar attenshun 2 wut u publish. thar has 2 bees wayz 2 thrive financially frum dat.
(i cud go on, which iz gud, cuz mah frend jim coudal an i r speakin togehtr on dis vary topic — online advertisin — at sxsw next week. r seshun iz at 3:30pm sunday afternoon.)
update: jason snell’s thoughtful response.
- dan moren on teh problem ipad developrz face: they dun has akshul ipads
teh sdk includez simulator, but it doesn’t rly halp wif gauging teh feelz.
- engadget’s newly ‘leaked’ concept video ov microsoft’s courier
vary interestin, but note dat dis iz not demo ov device, or even ov akshul software. iz demo ov concept. i’d wager money dat well nevr c an akshul product frum microsoft dat werkz liek dis.
- ★ thot regardin teh old apple-v.-microsoft ‘look an feel’ lawsuit
bunch ov readerz has emaild regardin yesterdai’s piece on teh apple-htc patent suit 2 ask y i didnt compare it 2 apple’s ill-fated “look an feelz” lawsuit against microsoft. i dun finks teh comparison iz all dat interestin or apt, basically.
4 wan ting, dat suit wuz copyright case, not patent case. i finks iz fair 2 sai dat’s an entirely different ballgame legally. 4 anothr, teh personnel r completely different. teh entirety ov dat dispute wif microsoft took place durin steve jobz’s exile frum apple.
but dat akshully led me 2 an interestin thot dis mornin. leef aside teh legal differencez tween copyright violashuns an patent disputes, an teh 2 cases moar or les boil down 2 teh same fundamental situashun: apple bringz 2 markit revolushunary next step in personal computerz; competitorz then use dose same ideaz in competin productz. microsoft an windowz then; google an android nao.
i can c dat wut sum peeps — peeps hoo r far moar sympathetic 2 teh idea ov apple attacking android via teh courts than i am — r thinkin iz moar or les dat apple got screwd teh last tiem when competitor wuz able 2 shamelessly use teh ideaz dat apple furst creatd, an so apple shud doez whatevr it can 2 keep dat frum happenin again.
apple’s argument in teh microsoft case wuz dat windowz wuz copy ov teh mac’s copyrighted “look an feelz”: mouse pointer, menu bar wif pull-down menus, overlapping rectangular windowz wif title bar at teh top containing buttons 4 zommin an closin, scrollbars, iconz representin applicashuns an documents, click-an-drag text selecshun, drag-an-drop, trash can, undo, “desktop”, cross-applicashun copy-an-paste — all thees aspects frum teh mac wuz also in windowz.
but wut if apple had patented thees tings in 1984, an had successfully protected thees patentz frum bein usd by othr u.s. companiez? (or at least teh featurez an designz which wuz not derived frum earlir werk at xerox.) iz not jus microsoft dat wud’ve been blocked frum creatin windowz as we knoe it. company calld next wud has been blocked frum creatin nextstep. evry single mac feachur i describd above wuz part ov teh next ui as well.
gud ideaz r meant 2 spread.
- ★ dis apple-htc patent ting
thar r 2 aspects surroundin apple’s patent litigation against htc dat demand furthr consideration. furst, teh severe problemz wif teh u.s. patent sistem as whole, particularly wif regard 2 software patentz. second, teh strategic implications ov apple’s decishun 2 file suit.
smart writers wif furst-hand experience wif software patentz has writteh mutch ovar teh past few yeers on teh sistem itself. tim bray, in particular, has writteh extensively on them, includin hims own experience obtainin them. i’ll quote her frum wan ov hims early piecez on teh subject:
r software patentz brokd idea? — i rly dun knoe. wan ov mah brothers, an industrial designr, has hims naym on patent 4 device 4 mixing gases dat’s usd in chromatographs. when he showd me teh filing, wif teh drawings an schematics an so on, i wuz impresd; thees guyz had cooked up nu arrangement ov valves an geometries dat did practical task in an elegant an nu wai. it felt mutch moar rigorous than teh wai we go bout inventing nu technology in teh software space; but maybe dat’s jus cuz me wai 2 close 2 teh software wurld an can c all teh warts on itz underbelly.
me inclined 2 finks thar’s spectrum ov reasonability in software patentz. “one-click ordering” seemz liek grievous error, simply cuz if u sed dose 3 werdz 2 any web-savvy ecommerce-savvy programmer, they’d sai “ok” an build it 4 u an it wud werk; which doesn’t seem 2 meet high enough bar 2 qualify as an invention. but considr teh basic pgp setup by fil zimmerman, iz jus immensely clevr an elegant. i has teh feelin dat dat rly doez qualify as an invention in totally teh same sense as mah brother’s gas-mixing apparatus. obviously i finks teh tings i fild r closer 2 pgp than wan-click ordering.
in latr follow-up, bray wrote:
doez dis mean dat i has concludd dat software patentz r jus fine, thank u, an teh current rat’s-nest ov litigation iz gud busines practice?
no; while i generally agree wif jonathan dat teh software-patent idea iz not inherently brokd (an thus disagree wif richard stallman), teh fact iz dat iz almost impossible 4 rational peeps 2 has rational discushun bout software patentz. teh reason iz teh insanely-dysfunctional behavior ov teh us patent an trademark office, whose idiotic willingness 2 grant patentz on anythin without regard 4 prior art or teh obviousness test has totally poisoned teh waters ov dis discushun. teh result, as i has argud b4, iz dat teh net effect ov teh software-patent sistem iz 2 serve as parasitic tax by lawyers on businesspeople.
wer i disagree wif jonathan iz on wut’s known as “business-method” patentz: wan-click ordering, per-employee pricing. me havin trouble seein teh benefit 2 society in granting patentz on somethin dat cud nevr possibly bees dun secretly. i also finks dat 2 git patent, an invention shud include innovation both in conception an implementashun.
teh emfasiz in teh last sentence quoted above iz mine. i has quoted extensively her frum bray cuz, havin re-read hims patent-relatd essays, i find myself in nearly complete agreement wif him. me not opposd 2 teh idea ov teh patent sistem on general principle (as stallman an lotz da otherz r). an i finks in lotz da fields, teh sistem has werkd an continuez 2 werk well.
but 4 software teh sistem, in practice, iz undeniably brokd. thar’s an argument 2 bees made dat software iz inherently different than othr fields ov invention, different in such wai dat patentz shud not apply — or, shud apply 4 significantly shortr period ov tiem b4 expiring. u can’t (or at least shouldn’t) bees able 2 patent mathematics, an thar r gud arguments dat programmin iz branch ov mathematics. but cuz software patentz r granted, concede at least 4 teh moment dat certain kinds ov software innovations ought 2 bees patentable. even wif dat in mind, clearly teh u.s. patent office iz an has granted patentz 4 tings which ought not bees patentable. not jus silly frivolous tings, but patentz dat has been granted 4 concepts alone, rathr than specific innovative implementations ov sed concepts. ideaz in teh abstract, rathr than implementations ov ideaz.
jus few weekz ago, bray published “givin up on patentz”:
not so lotz da yeers ago, even as i wuz filled wif fear an loathing of the hideous misconduct of the US Patent & Trademark Office, I retained some respect for the notion of patents. I even wrote what I think is an unusually easy-to-read introduction to patent theory. but no moar. teh whole ting iz 2 brokd 2 bees fixd. maybe it werkd once, but it doesn’t any moar. teh patent sistem needz 2 bees torn down an thrown out.
paul graham, hoo has also been awarded software patentz, has writteh well on teh subject, 2:
we, as hackers, knoe teh uspto iz letting peeps patent teh knives an forks ov r wurld. teh problem iz, teh uspto r not hackers. they’re probably gud at judgin nu inventions 4 casting steel or grinding lenses, but they dun understand software yet.
an:
thar’s nothin speshul bout fysical embodiments ov control systems dat shud mak them patentable, an teh software equivalent not.
unfortunately, patent law iz inconsistent on dis point. patent law in most countries sez dat algorithms aren’t patentable. dis rule iz left ovar frum tiem when “algorithm” meant somethin liek teh sieve ov eratosthenes. in 1800, peeps cud not c as readily as we can dat great lotz da patentz on mechanical objects wuz rly patentz on teh algorithms they embodied.
patent lawyers still has 2 pretend dat’s wut they’re doin when they patent algorithms. u must not use teh werd “algorithm” in teh title ov patent applicashun, jus as u must not use teh werd “essays” in teh title ov book. if u wants 2 patent an algorithm, u has 2 frame it as computr sistem executin dat algorithm. then iz mechanical; phew. teh default euphemism 4 algorithm iz “system an method.” try patent search 4 dat frase an c how lotz da resultz u git.
thees arcane rulez lead 2 patentz bein describd in an obfuscated manner. dat they r patenting algorithms but must pretend they’re patenting somethin else iz teh definishun ov brokd sistem.
2 me, “user interface” patentz r hand-in-hand wif “busines method patentz” as examplez ov tings which, no mattr how innovative or original, ought not bees patentable. they’re idea patentz.
adobe, 2 taek wan example, has patent on tabbed palettes. if u’ve usd adobe appz liek fotoshop, indesign, or illustrator in teh past decade, u knoe wut they r. design applicashuns has been usin floatin on-screen palettes all teh wai bak 2 teh original macpaint in 1984. unlike dialog boxes, they wuz not modal an “floated” ovar teh document window. unlike menus, they remained visible. they’re ubiquitous in design appz. wan shortcoming, howevr, wuz dat if u opened 2 lotz da ov them, u cluttered ur screen — teh moar palettes u has open, teh les room u has 4 displaying teh document itself. adobe came up wif great feachur: they allowd u 2 dock multiple palettes togehtr as tabs within single palette window, an u cud drag individual tabs tween windowz or drag them out into der own window. (similar, at teh palette level, 2 tabbed web browsr windowz.) adobe patented teh idea, an when macromedia implementd vershun ov it, adobe sued (an won — measly $2.8 million). 2 me, dat’s egsaktly teh sort ov patent litigation dat iz aimed at stifling innovation rathr than rewarding it. buildin on teh ideaz ov otherz iz fundamental 2 competishun.
no wan company can or shud bees expectd 2 change teh entire u.s. patent sistem. liek any entrenchd sistem wif powerful entities hoo seek 2 maintain teh status quo, were likely stuck wif it. an so teh wai teh computr industry has dealt wif it iz detente. companiez obtain as lotz da patentz as they can, writteh as broadly as they can git away wif. an since evryone (wer by “everyone” i mean all large tech corporations) has large patent portfolio, an nearly evry idea undr teh sun has been patented by someone 2 sum degree, most ov them r inert. company doesn’t sue company b 4 infringing upon patentz held by cuz ’s own productz almost certainly infringe upon sum patentz held by b.
dis iz y pure patent troll companiez such as nathan myhrvold’s intellectual ventures r so despised. they’re immune frum teh threat ov counter-suit cuz they has no productz or servicez. der only busines iz extorting patent licensin feez.
teh analogy 2 nucular weapons iz overwrought when considerd literally, but in termz ov strategy iz quite apt. paul graham, on amazon’s notorious “one-click” patent:
Where Amazon went over to the dark side was not in applying for the patent, but in enforcing it. A lot of companies (Microsoft, for example) have been granted large numbers of preposterously over-broad patents, but they keep them mainly for defensive purposes. Like nuclear weapons, the main role of big companies’ patent portfolios is to threaten anyone who attacks them with a counter-suit. Amazon’s suit against Barnes & Noble was thus the equivalent of a nuclear first strike.
That suit probably hurt Amazon more than it helped them. Barnes & Noble was a lame site; Amazon would have crushed them anyway. To attack a rival they could have ignored, Amazon put a lasting black mark on their own reputation. Even now I think if you asked hackers to free-associate about Amazon, the one-click patent would turn up in the first ten topics.
which bringz us 2 apple an htc. regardles ov teh merits ov all 20 ov teh patentz apple accuses htc ov violating, strategy-wise teh comparison 2 amazon an barnes an noble seemz apt: apple has teh clearly superior product an iz winnin handily in teh marketplace. whatevr benefit in teh markit apple hopes 2 achieve by dis suit 2 me seemz likely 2 bees wurth far les than teh loss ov gud will an prestige apple will suffr if they vigorously pursue dis case (let alone if they initiate moar such suits).
wil shipley, in an open lettr 2 steve jobz regardin teh htc litigation:
u’ve famously taken an built on ideaz frum ur competitorz, as has i, as we shud, as great artists doez. y iz wut htc has dun worse? whethr an idea wuz patented doesn’t change teh morality ov copying it, it only changez teh ability 2 sue. […]
if apple becomez company dat usez itz might 2 quash competishun instead ov usin itz brains, iz goin 2 find teh brainiest peeps will slowly stop werkin thar. u knoe dis, u watched it happen at microsoft.
copying ideaz iz how progres iz made. iz copying implementations dat iz wrong (an illegal). admittedly thar r gray areas, an reasonable peeps can disagree bout whethr sum specific instances cross dat line. but htc’s fonez r not copiez ov teh ifone. teh nexus wan iz without queshun highly influencd by teh ifone, both in termz ov fysical form factor an teh android software frum google. but it iz also without queshun not clone.
mah favorite theory thus far regardin y apple iz suing htc iz expressed entirely in dis tweet frum john siracusa:
2 me, teh apple patent suit smellz liek nothin moar than manifestation ov jobz’s own sense ov injustice.
i.e., jobz iz offendd by htc’s productz, not worried bout them. i can understand teh indignation, or at least imagine dat i can.
apple’s pres releasez tend 2 bees remarkably terse an plainspoken, at least by teh standardz ov modern corporate communication. an when jobz iz quoted in them, teh werdz r carefully chosen an meaningful, worthy ov bein carefully parsed1 — not at all liek teh bromides attributed 2 ceos frum most companiez in most prs. teh pr announcin thees suits against htc iz no excepshun:
“we can sit by an watch competitorz steel r patented inventions, or we can doez somethin bout it. we’ve decidd 2 doez somethin bout it,” sed steve jobz, apple’s ceo. “we finks competishun iz healthy, but competitorz shud create der own original technology, not steel ours.”
dat’s not teh language ov licensin dispute or teh beginnin ov polite negotiation. dat’s teh language ov man aggrieved.
durin jobz’s ifone introducshun keynote addres in january 2007, b4 showin wut teh ifone lookd liek, jobz put up dis slide showin 4 ov teh then-leadin smartphones on teh markit: teh motorola q, blackberry, palm treo, an teh nokia e62.
dose pre-ifone smartphones jobz displayd all shard teh same fundamental design: haf-screen, haf keyboard, an an up/down/left/rite navigation controllr. nao look at dis prototype android fone gizmodo spotted in decembr 2007 — 11 monthz aftr teh ifone introducshun. android wuz conceived ov dat same old model — teh prototype gizmodo findz in decembr 2007 wud has fit perfectly alongside teh othr 4 fonez in jobz’s keynote slide.
teh gapin chasm tween dat treo-ish/blackberry-ish prototype android device an teh htc g1 dat went on sale yer latr (let alone teh nexus wan todai) wuz bridged by ideaz frum teh ifone.
teh ifone introducd nu model. true great leap forward in teh state ov teh art. not small screen dat showz u tings which u manipulate indirectly usin buttons an trackballs occupying haf teh device’s surface area, but instead touchscreen dat occupies almost teh entirety ov teh surface area, showin tings u manipulate directly.
android iz far bettr platform todai than it wud has been if apple had nevr creatd teh ifone. dat, in sum sense, iz not fair.
i finks siracusa iz egsaktly rite dat jobz has particularly acute sensitivity 2 dis sort ov unfairness. dis litigation, perhapz then, isnt bout particular specific patented componentz, but rathr iz bout teh hooj idea, teh general gist an grand ambition ov teh ifone as teh basic model 4 how modern mobile devicez shud bees designd an werk.
no doubt sum ov u r nodding ur headz an c dis as justification 4 apple’s suit. but life isnt fair. great ideaz mak teh wurld bettr. apple can rightly expect 2 benefit greatly frum teh ideaz embodied by teh ifone, but they can’t expect 2 reap all ov teh benefitz frum dose ideaz.
dat’s teh nachur ov implementing insanely great ideaz. teh bar has been raisd, an, yez, apple did most ov teh lifting. dat’s how it goez.
if dis had happend dai earlir i dun finks i wud has postd dat rfs. apple iz inching evr closer 2 evil, an i worry dat thar’s no wan within teh company hoo can stand up 2 jobz an tell him so.
“that rfs” iz teh request 4 ipad software startups frum graham’s y combinator, an lest u finks “evil” iz 2 overwrought werd, graham clarified latr in teh same thread:
historically teh werd “evil” has had pritee broad meanin. among tech companiez teh werd has nu an fairly specific sense dat follows frum paul buchheit’s slogan “don’t bees evil.” dat’s teh sense i wuz usin. it has pritee low bar. it meanz, roughly, winnin by takin advantage ov peeps instead ov by doin gud werk.
i wouldn’t use teh werd evil dis wai, but me rite thar wif graham on dis sentiment. an i sai dis not in any sort ov hippy-dippy sense ov expecting or even hopin 4 apple 2 behave selflessly, holdin them 2 separate idealistic standard, or expecting them 2 fight wif wan arm tied behind der corporate bak. an only fool wud argue dat company shud nevr seek redress thru litigation.
but i bleev dat iz gud busines, in teh long run, 4 company’s acts ov aggression 2 taek place in teh markit, not in teh courts. mah concern regardin dis litigation against htc iz dat it lookz liek an act ov competitive aggression, not defense.
i can finks ov only few optimistic angles 4 dis suit. wan iz dat perhapz iz by-product ov teh suit apple iz engaged in against (an initiated by) nokia. apple’s counter-suit against nokia involves sum ov teh same patentz at play her, an perhapz apple’s lawyers has concludd dat they ned 2 enforce them against someone liek htc in ordr 2 use them in der counter-suit against nokia. or, perhapz wan or moar ov teh truly technical patentz apple has citd against htc r genuine instances ov intellectual property theft, teh specific nachur ov which iz unclear frum teh opaque language ov teh patent filings, an teh rest ov teh citd patent violashuns wuz tacked on as part ov legal strategy along teh linez ov “if u’re goin 2 punch them, punch them as hard as u can”. i.e. dat they’ve fild suit as widely as they can, but has specific narrow violashuns in mind.
wut worries me iz teh idea dat apple, or even jus steve jobz, believez dat fonez liek teh nexus wan has no rite 2 exist, period, an dat patent litigation 2 keep them off teh markit iz in teh company’s interests. i sai iz worrisome not cuz i finks iz evil, or foolish, or unreasonable, but cuz it iz unwize, shortsighted, an unnecessary.
-
4 example, considr teh timin ov dis pr apple releasd early in teh mornin on january 5, announcin teh 3-billionth download frum teh app store. jobz iz quoted thus: “the revolushunary app store offerz ifone an ipod touch userz an experience unlike anythin else available on othr mobile devicez, an we c no signz ov teh competishun catching up anytime soon.”
january 5 wuz teh dai google held itz event 2 unveil teh nexus wan. ↩
-
- ★ assorted brief observashuns an thoughtz regardin windowz fone 7
they stopped diggin
gud 4 microsoft 4 startin ovar wif truly nu ui an nu developr apis. thar’s an old sayin dat when u find yourself in hole, stop diggin. microsoft findz themselvez in hole teh dai apple unveild teh ifone, but continud diggin 4 3 moar yeers. bettr late than nevr, though.
teh zune ui
jus bout any nu ui wud bees bettr than teh existin windowz mobile ui. but basing teh nu windowz fone 7 ui on teh zune raisez teh queshun ov y they finks iz goin 2 fare any bettr than, well, teh zune.
teh ‘phone’ in teh naym
renaming teh platform frum “windows mobile” 2 “windows fone 7 seriez” makez it even les applicable than evr 2 non-fone mobiles, liek teh ipod touch. i finks teh ipod touch iz teh single greatest strength ov teh ifone os platform. u can argue dat fonez liek teh nexus wan an pre plus r worthy rivals 2 teh ifone 3gs, but thar iz no rival 2 teh ipod touch. nao, admittedly, apple’s mobile os has “phone” in itz naym 2, so i suppose thar’s no reason y someone might not mak non-fone device runnin teh “windows fone” os, but it seemz shortsighted 2 me. teh only logical explanashun i can finks ov iz dat microsoft only planz 2 license teh os 4 use on akshul fonez, an they’re goin 2 pull an apple wif non-fone devicez 4 dis platform wif der zune brand.
teh ‘windows’ in teh naym
teh biggr naming queshun: y naym it “windows” anythin? if microsoft iz goin 4 clean break, y not nu non-“windows” naym? i finks it showz jus how perverse microsoft’s obsession wif “windows” iz. thar’s no gud wai 2 leverage der windowz pc os monopoly 2 extend it 2 mobile, othr than teh naym, so they’re stickin wif it. it doesn’t even mak literal sense. teh whole point ov teh “windows” naym iz dat it wuz 4 sistem whose ui revolved around teh concept ov on-screen windowz. thar r no windowz in teh windowz fone 7 interface. (thar’s also no start menu in teh wp7 ui; dat wuz teh linchpin ov ui similarity tween windowz (4 pcs) an windowz mobile.)
nu non-windowz naym wud has let microsoft use 1.0 vershun numbr. i finks teh “7” in “windows fone 7 seriez” iz detriment 2 der mesage dat dis iz clean break frum windowz mobile 6 an earlir. teh 7 impliez “new vershun ov teh old ting”, which isnt wut they wants at all cuz teh old ting iz unloved an unpopular. nu 1.0 ting wud has also dampened uncomfortable queshuns bout y fonez available todai won’t bees upgradeable 2 teh nu sistem when it shipz.
teh osborne effect
dat () windowz fone 7 unitz aren’t expectd til late dis yer (an finks bout wut happenz if teh schedule slips); an (b) current windowz mobile 6.5 fonez will not bees upgradeable suggestz dat windowz mobile fonez aren’t goin 2 has gud yer, salez-wise. windowz mobile salez an markit share wuz already in steep decline; teh osborne effect isnt goin 2 halp.
perhapz in teh long run it doesn’t mattr jus how badly windowz mobile handsets sell tween nao an teh debut ov windowz fone 7 handsets. but on teh othr hand, teh last ting microsoft needz in teh weekz an monthz leadin up 2 teh nu handsets debuting iz bad pres bout tanking “windows mobile” salez. (anothr reason y it wud has been gud idea 2 use nu brand naym.)
triumph ov teh ifone form factor
when teh ifone debutd, thar wuz no popular fonez basd primarily on large touchscreen. nao, nearly all nu smartphones share teh same basic form: roughly 3.5-inch touchscreen. (non-touchscreen blackberries r teh biggest excepshun.) lotz da include hardware keyboard, but teh touchscreen iz teh startin point. teh windowz fone 7 software doesn’t look liek teh ifone’s mutch at all. but teh hardware iz pritee mutch an ifone wif 2 extra buttons (bak an search). wan advantage windowz fone 7 cud has ovar android iz dat wp7 wuz designd wif dis form factor — teh large touchscreen — as baseline assumpshun. all major android fonez on teh markit has dis form factor 2, but teh android os itself wuz designd 2 bees abstract enough not 2 require touchscreen at all. dat’s handicapped android in termz ov tings liek text editin, which requirez teh use ov trackball or direcshun pad instead ov pure touch interface.
hoo’s teh competishun?
teh hooj 3 mobile platformz rite nao r ifone, blackberry, an android. (feelz free 2 add nokia as fourth.) i finks windowz fone 7 iz most competitive wif android, cuz dat’s teh wan wif teh same busines model: licensin teh os 2 oem hardware makerz. they’re even competin 4 attenshun frum teh vary same hardware makerz, especially htc. google’s been undercutting microsoft wif free (or nearly free) servicez 4 few yeers nao: google docz against office, gmail 4 busines against exchange, an soon, chrome os against windowz. but dis wan, android vs. windowz mobile, iz teh furst wan wer google seemz poised 2 taek teh lead. windowz fone 7 doesn’t jus has 2 bees bettr than android, it has 2 bees bettr enough 2 convince handset makerz dat iz wurth teh licensin feez.
- ★ yet moar on teh unfolding future-ov-flash-an-teh-web saga
i luv dis whole unfolding future-ov-flash saga cuz iz wonderful mix ov politics an technology. iz complex an multivariate, but not 2 complex 2 git handle on teh basic gist. it occurred 2 me dis week, aftr both readin an writin quite bit regardin flash playr’s performance issuez, dat teh whole performance angle iz distraction frum teh fundamental issuez at hand.
i linked 2 dis piece by jeffrey zeldman 3 weekz ago, but iz wurth re-link. hims furst paragraf nails it:
lack ov flash in teh ipad (an b4 dat, in teh ifone) iz win 4 accessible, standardz-basd design. not cuz flash iz bad, but cuz teh increasin popularity ov devicez dat dun support flash iz goin 2 force recalcitrant web developrz 2 build teh semantic html layer furst. additional layerz ov flash ux can then bees opshunally addd in, jus as, in propr, accessible, standardz-basd development, javascript ux enhancements r addd only aftr we verify dat teh siet werkz without them.
i.e. if u finks peeps usin ifone os devicez r an important segment ov ur intendd audience, u can no longr build flash-dependent web siet. (an if u dun finks peeps usin ifone os devicez r an important segment ov ur intendd audience, u’re probably wrong.)
flash’s performance problemz on mac os x an mobile devicez r vary mutch real. (as ov todai, note dat thar still iz no shippin vershun ov teh fol flash playr 4 any major mobile platform.) an i doez finks thees performance issuez r factor in apple’s decishun not 2 include it in ifone os. but i bleev teh largr issue goez beyond performance. apple seez teh web as platform basd on open standardz. flash isnt part ov dat.
so at teh moment, flash’s performance issuez provide apple wif gud apolitical explanashun 4 y flash playr isnt includd wif ifone os. iz wai 4 apple 2 argue dat they can’t rathr than dat they won’t.
yez, me skeptical bout how flash playr iz goin 2 perform on android an webos devicez. i hope me wrong though. if adobe’s able 2 squeeze acceptable performance out ov flash playr 10.1 on thees (relatively) low-powr arm devicez, then iz vary likely dat flash playr 10.1 4 mac os x iz goin 2 bees mutch improovd as well. (in teh same wai teh constraints imposed on ifone os has been great 4 mac os x — performance tweaks 2 componentz liek webkit (an especially javascriptcore) made 2 git mobilesafari runnin as fast as posible on low-powr ifonez has resultd in fantastic performance improovements 2 webkit on high-powr macz.)
heers wut i mean bout flash playr’s performance bein distraction frum teh underlyin story: even if adobe solves flash’s performance problemz, i still doubt apple will wants 2 include it in ifone os.
it boils down 2 control. i has writteh several tiems dat i bleev apple controlz teh entire source code 2 ifone os. (no wan has disputd dat.) thar’s no bug apple can’t try 2 fix on der own. no performance problem they can’t try 2 tackle. no wan they ned 2 wait 4. dat’s jus not true 4 mac os x, wer component liek flash playr iz controlld by adobe.
i knoe thar r sum peeps hoo c apple takin stand against flash an worry dat apple cud someday taek stand against teh web itself. wan ting dat evryone hoo’s paying attenshun can agree on iz dat apple greatly values control. dat’s indisputable, regardles whethr u considr it virtue or vice. so i finks teh worriers c dat teh web iz beyond anyone’s control an conclude dat apple seez it as threat.
i sai wut apple cares bout controlling iz teh implementashun. dat’s y they startd teh webkit project. dat’s y apple employeez frum teh webkit team r leaderz an major contributors ov teh html5 standardz driv. teh bottom line 4 apple, at teh executiv level, iz sellin devicez. it cud well bees true dat steve jobz doesn’t rly giv shit bout teh web in an ov itself. iz jus gud busines 4 apple 2 control best-ov-bred web rendrin engine. if apple controlz itz own implementashun, then no mattr how popular teh web getz as platform, apple will prosper so long as itz implementashun iz superior. (needless 2 sai, apple iz quite confident in dis regard.)
teh weird ting bout completely open platform basd on open standardz iz dat while no single vendor, such as apple, can control teh content or teh standardz, it can control itz implementashun. (an it can influence teh content an teh standardz.) dat’s all they ned.
likewise wif google’s interest in teh open web an html5. iz reasonable 2 bees cynical an bleev dat google iz concerned only wif makin money, not wif teh open web simply 4 virtue’s sake. so long as teh web iz open, google’s succes rests within itz own control. an in teh same wai apple iz confident in itz ability 2 delivr devicez wif best-ov-bred browsin experiencez, google iz confident in itz ability 2 provide best-ov-bred search resultz an relevant adz. in short, google an apple has findz different wayz 2 bet wif teh web, rathr than against teh web.
teh best counter-argument iz perhapz dat, given apple’s desire 4 control, they’re alwayz goin 2 prefr der wholly ownd proprietary platformz — native ifone an mac appz — ovar teh web, an will evenshully come 2 c teh web as threat. i dun finks apple seez it dat wai, though. thar iz alwayz goin 2 bees lowest common denominator platform. dat usd 2 bees windowz. nao iz teh web. apple doesn’t build lowest common denominator platformz. b4, when windowz wuz teh lcd, apple wuz in hard place cuz they wuz locked out ov dat platform: der platform wuz at odds wif it. nao, wif teh web as teh lcd, apple has it both wayz: der platformz gracefully coexist wif it. apple isnt web company, but teh web might bees teh best ting dat evr happend 2 them.
frum apple’s perspectiv, when it comez 2 software platformz, theirs iz best (cocoa/cocoa touch), cuz they has complete control. evryone’s iz gud (teh web), cuz apple has control ovar der own implementashun an can influence teh future direcshun ov teh standardz. wut apple doesn’t wants iz someone else’s proprietary platform, wer they has no control at all. dat’s wut flash iz.
i has sed dis b4 an will sai it again. thar’s only wan path 4 flash playr 2 mak itz wai 2 ifone os:
- it appearz furst on othr competin mobile platformz.
- it werkz well on dose platformz.
- itz presence an popularity on dose competin platformz shifts consumr demand an adversely affects ifone os device salez.
#1 will happen. regardin #2, me skeptical, but adobe has smart engineerz an der bak iz 2 teh wall. #3, though, wud require major shift in momentum.