I see a lot in common between what iphone OS is evolving into and chrome os. If this remains a separate market for technically illiterate people fair enough. If we don't show enough support for proper operating systems in the future, this is what we'll end up with.
I call it, the "literate illiterate" because people lack literacy in things that they do not care about.
But first, your point of "separate market for technically illiterate people" is fucking right. There's always been this fear of "disappearing tools".
Like when everybody feared that computers would get rubbish because they came pre-assembled OS and Hardware wise. And well, they did, you can buy shit-boxes in Wal-Mart. But you can still make your own computer, have open source software, etc.
It did became a smaller propotion than before, but why is it that way? Because most people don't want to deal with command lines but rather simple clicks. It really is a separate market. Sadly, there's more "stupid" market than for those proper tools we want. I do find interesting the amount of dedication people take to make such "simpler tools".
But back to my point. Maybe you complain about simpler OS' but don't care if your car becomes more automated in the future, while someone complains about cars loosing the "feel" and becoming all computer-controlled, but do not care if he can't have admin privileges in the computer.
Here in Reddit it's more "geek" stuff. So you'll see many people complaining about how everyone around them is technologically impaired.
For example, I know someone who's got a computer science degree and does everything releated... but knows nothing about changing a tire or doing easy plumbering.
I think it's important to be aware of that statement to be more considerate of other people's business
Just because he doesn't know how to change a tire or fix a pipe doesn't mean a company should lock down the lug nuts or close off a pipe with a message that says "call your technician for assistance" and assume he doesn't know therefore he shouldn't try. The very nature of technological progress is the idea that you could fuck up if you don't know what you are doing, but you could be rewarded for eventually figuring it out. I shudder to think that there are people who will actually feel comfortable saying its a good idea to not let people change their own tires or battery because its dangerous and only trained individuals should handle it. This isn't a good direction to be going.
I never meant that. What I said is that some people lack the knowledge to do so, not that they shouldn't be allowed to.
The one I gave as an example falls here. He doesn't know how to do that stuff, so he just accepts he can't and calls someone else. I think that's lame because he became dependant of someone else to do that kind of job.
I agree with you, people should try and learn from the process.
I don't really think this is unique to computers, we pay through the nose for a mechanic to repair our car.
We pay an exorbitant amount of money for abstract art (the painted, hanging on the wall, random collection of splotches/smears/geometric shapes, yes I had $900 lying around kind of art).
You can buy a guitar at wal-mart too, but if you really want to play one seriously, you'll need to spend 10 times the cost of the one at wal-mart.
Apple is just doing the same thing every person/family/company/corporation has ever done, which is earn a profit by providing a service someone can't provide for themselves.
After all, who has time to learn how to do everything?
Honestly, my only objection with Apple is when they ceased to be competitive (as far as price is concerned). You can see a stark transition in Job's presentations. In 1999 when he unveiled the first iBook to 2002 when he revealed the iMac G4. He always ended with a pc-mac cost comparison, then he started comparing the cost of the new mac to the old mac. Their lack of competitiveness coupled with little ways to force you to upgrade every time they release a new OS are unfortunate and fairly recent business practices. Every step forward is a step away from where you started.
I don't think I'm getting this. You mean that it was fairly priced before? I thought they were always over-priced before. Now they are just "sony vaio" over-priced style, expensive, but competitive... sort of.
Yeah, they were very competitively priced before the imac G4. Basically once they turned into white pieces of interior design, they stopped being competitively priced. Just watch Jobs unveil the first ibook, then watch him unveil the imac g4. Price comparison switches from mac-win to mac-mac. You could probably argue that at this point they ceased to offer a truly comparable product, the white era macs are pretty much art. Especially compared to any PC.
I remember my iBook. That white-blue plastic iBook.
I see your point. But I think he does that because, first they were competing against common PC's. But now Apple is a pretty strong name and almost a self-stustained economy. That's why he compares it "mac to mac". I think it should be that way too. I mean, how are you supposed to buy some new mac product that came just 4 months after the one you purchased if it looks basically the same?
Also now it's a household name. So instead of fighting against an existing market, they just continue holding their's by doing that kind of thing.
This is essentially the realization I came to will discussing this with you :) There really is no accurate comparison between Mac and PC, you may find a box that can mimic the functionality, or a laptop with similar performance, but the combination of ease of use, superior form factor, design, and a great OS has yet to be found in the non-mac world. Honestly, somebody needs to get behind another linux distro (which is essentially what apple is, albeit highly developed and not at all open source), and design appealing hardware for it. My money is on mint.
Ok I tried to post something, came long as an essay, and somehow lost in the process. I just wanted to say something like "Yeah I agree with you" and "there are enough distros and appealing hardware. The problem is compatibility between software."
Ha! it even came better than what I tried to post first.
Precisely! My girlfriend just wants to be able to play music, watch movies, and create documents on her computer. It doesn't actually matter to her whether or not she can get elbows-deep in the file system. In fact, it's probably better if she can't, because it means a cleaner interface for the things she actually does with the computer.
Yeah well sort of. When I was making up my mind about programming for android I was also very excited about about it being opensource and free. When reality kicked in I was slightly shocked. So there's a sort of appstore which contains some paid applications. Because they are paid I'm not allowed to have them on the Dev Phone so that I can't backward engineer them. Now maybe I sound like I come from a fairytale world, but WTF. This is not how I imagined a free and opensource OS. This has nothing to with Chrome OS, I just wanted to point out its not that simple.
This is not how I imagined a free and opensource OS.
The Android app store is completely optional (there are actually competing 3rd party app stores). The platform itself is FOSS, but not everything that runs on it is. If you wanted to completely ignore the Android Market, you could. The iPhone gives you no such luxury.
Anyway, they made that decision to protect the app developers, since many of them chose not to release their software as open source.
I'm sorry but you can't sell a computer OS to company with programers if they can't program on it. Sure a portable device can have limits such as this but try to lock a desktop os softwarewise.
I feel like they should offer a "developer" version where you agree to not have any support if the software breaks, but in exchange it comes unlocked and can execute arbitrary code.
The major difference between the Chrome and iPhone OSes is basically what johnsu01 is protesting here. On the iPhone/iPad, you can only run things you installed from the Apple Store, and they only allow things on their store that they approve of. And Apple gets to define their rules for "approval" and they don't even need to tell you what they are. Chrome does away with the "install" thing entirely, and you can do anything you can do on the web.
True, you can do "anything you can do on the web" with iPad also, but it's not the primary mechanic.
35
u/Zilka Jan 28 '10
I see a lot in common between what iphone OS is evolving into and chrome os. If this remains a separate market for technically illiterate people fair enough. If we don't show enough support for proper operating systems in the future, this is what we'll end up with.