wow at all the iPad haters out there...

[redrumloa]

Apple's move from Steve1 to Steve2.

These 2 parts sum it up pretty quick for me.

You cannot run software Apple does not distribute itself. You cannot access the file system unless you hack the machine. You cannot open the hood; indeed, the machine lacks any screws. I compared my iPad to various appliances around the home—coffee machines, toaster, cameras—and the only thing comparably sealed was, well, an iPod. The iPad has no slots; its only interface is an Apple-specific plug. Oddly enough, this all means that the iPad is not a machine that Apple's founders, in the 1970s, would have ever considered buying.

Still, it is meant for consumers not users, and as such has far more in common with the television than the personal computer. It is not meant for the Homebrew Computer Club—for tinkerers, hobbyists, or for that matter, creators.

 

[Glaucus]

Yep, if Apple was a little more like Google then the iPad would probably be far more attractive.

When Google announced a deal to acquire video technology company On2 last year, the move generated speculation that the search giant was aiming to liberate the VP8 codec in order to accelerate the advancement of standards-based open video. Google has remained silent about its plans for On2's intellectual property, but signs have emerged that the company is planning to do precisely what the speculators anticipated.

According to a report at NewTeeVee, inside sources have confirmed that Google will be open-sourcing the VP8 codec next month at the Google I/O conference. Mozilla and Google will also reportedly announce plans to implement support for VP8 in their respective browsers at that time. The move could have profound ramifications on the viability of standards-based video playback and the future of rich media on the Internet.

Apple == Closed and proprietary
Google == Open and free

 

[Wayne]

Apple == Closed and proprietary
Google == Open and free

Sorry buddy, can't follow you there.

Google may be "open" but considering their history of pulling Big Brother tactics, "free" is not a word I'd choose to associate with them.

Wayne

 

[Glaucus]

Apple == Closed and proprietary
Google == Open and free

Sorry buddy, can't follow you there.

Really? Ok, maybe not to advertisers, but for average Joe consumer Google is pretty economical. For example: Google web searches (including images, maps, news, finances, etc + Google Desktop), Google Earth, Google Docs (includes 1GB free cloud storage per account), Calendar, GMail, YouTube, Blogger, Picasa, SketchUp, Chrome, VP8 codec, Android and of course the Google Summer of Code where they actually pay you to write open source code. Personally I think that's quite the contribution to the internet and computing in general all for the cost of $0.

Apple in comparison gifts the consumer Safari, iTunes (useful only for those with an iPod/iPhone/iPad or who specifically want to buy stuff from Apple) and QuickTime (which is more of a negative then a positive). For everything else you pay through the nose. But who knows, maybe if iAd becomes successful Apple will adopt Google's market philosophy? Mmmm... Probably not.

But really, "free" is not the opposite of proprietary and Google really isn't about providing free services (it just fits their business model nicely which involves charging handsomely for all those ads). I should have used the word "egalitarian" instead. I know Apple is a fan of using white for their products but if you were to pick out a white knight in the tech industry it would probably be Google. They're pro open-source, advocates of net neutrality and stand up to China at their own personal loss. But somehow I'm guessing you won't follow me here either.

EDIT: An interesting read: The anti-Steve Jobs

On the last Friday in March, a Gizmodo reader snapped a photo of Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs huddled around a small table outside a cafe in Palo Alto, Calif. This was a surprise: Apple and Google had once been Silicon Valley's best pals, but over the last year their relationship had soured very publicly. Now the two CEOs looked to be stuck in some kind of awkward—and maybe staged—attempt to patch things up. Gizmodo asked a body-language expert to analyze the photo of Jobs and Schmidt. The conclusion: Both men seemed uncomfortable, but Schmidt's posture was more noteworthy. As he spoke to Jobs, Google's CEO hunched his shoulders subserviently, the way criminals do when they're around the police. Schmidt, the body-language expert concluded, is scared of Jobs.

 

[cecilia]

don't bring your iPad to Israel (not that i would ever go to that place anyway)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100415/ap_ ... l_ipad_ban

 

[Glaucus]

Apple Wants To Own You

Steve Jobs has gone from producing a computer—the original Macintosh—that he called "insanely great" to producing a computer—the iPad—that is totally insane. Actually, the iPad and its silicon predecessors, the iPod Touch and iPhone, aren't insane. What's insane is the perimeter mines, tank traps, revetments, and glacis he's deployed around these shiny devices to slow software developers to a crawl so he can funnel them through his rapacious toll booth and collect a sweet vig before he'll let their programs run on your new iDevice.

If you've not been following this controversy, here's the outline. In the beginning—which was the summer of 2007—Jobs and Apple released the iPhone. A wonderful touch-screen-operated telephone, camera, music player, Web browser, and messaging device, it could run any application you wanted—as long as the application came from Apple.

I especially liked this bit:

In Stogdill's telling analogy, you "aren't buying a computer when you buy an iPad, you are buying a 16GB Walmart store shelf that fits on your lap—complete with all the supplier beat downs, slotting fees, and exclusive deals that go with it—and Apple got you to pay for the building."

 

[cecilia]

[youtube:1zrm7ls1]Q9NP-AeKX40&[/youtube:1zrm7ls1]