Jobs Says No Tethering iPad To iPhone 423
tugfoigel writes "Anyone who currently owns an iPhone and was hoping they would be able to use it as a mobile Web access point for a Wi-Fi iPad just got some bad news. Reportedly, Steve Jobs has said this will not happen. Swedish blog Slashat.se claims they e-mailed Jobs directly to ask him whether or not you'd be able to tether your iPad and iPhone and received a terse 'No' in reply. According to the report, the email headers made it plausible that the reply had come from Jobs's iPhone."
You get what you pay for? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why did anybody think that they'd allow users to tether the iPad to anything when it's 3G data plan only costs $30 a month? With its limited OS, you can only run official apps that can't have high-bandwidth uses (like streaming video) on 3G. That's the reason you get such a discount compared to a $60 a month 5 GB plan...
If you want to tether a computer and have iPad and iPhone and let them think they're on WiFi, you want a $60 a month plan and a MiFi device from either Verizon or Sprint.
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're confused. This isn't about tethering something through iPad. This is about tethering iPad (the model without 3G) through iPhone. It's something that you can do with any cheapo netbook and any cheapo phone (not even smartphone).
I don't see why anyone should be "allowing" (much less "not allowing") me to tether things the way I want, either. In fact, this kind of thing - "Unlimited mobile data plan for just $X! <small>for use with selected mobile devices with provider-supplied Web browser application only!</small>", which is so prevalent in North America, really irks me - back in my home country, I would get a proper data plan which lets me use teh tube however I see fit, without any such bullshit, for those very same $X (usually less, in fact).
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, I've heard the same statement from Linux/Ubuntu users as well. :)
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Informative)
At least with Linux you can code the feature in. Same with Windows (Mobile). Even with goddamn Symbian.
$60 a month for 5GB limited 3G plan with some additional device? Jeez. I pay around $20 a month for 1 Mbit/s unlimited 3G and they happily send extra sim cards if you want to use the same contract with extra devices and no bullshit clauses about tethering etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since T-Mobile changed their rate plans, I managed to upgrade two lines to unlimited data/Blackberry email for only an additional $10/month (and no contract extension to boot). And yeah, they don't give a damn if it's tethered to something or not. I think this is the exception to "you get what you pay for," unless people really are intending to pay that much to be screwed.
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Funny)
A giant customized Starbucks in Cupertino California where lattes and no soy skim macchiatos are given out free to all employees. The background music involves a playlist of Nora Jones, David Matthews, John Mayer, and Bono on loop from an Ipod docked somewhere in the Apple/Starbucks facility. Hours are long but morale is surprising high as developers, hardware and software, are given 30 minute breaks to masturbate to the new itunes interface.
All developers sit at cafe type tables with a Mac Book Pro while their lord and master Steve Jobs stands deskless in his predictable attire of a turtleneck and jeans. In fact, this is the preferred (mandatory) dress code at Apple. Jobs walks around to each and every department, separated by latte and vegan preferences, and checks on the performance and efficiency of his developers. At any given point in the day one may see Mr Jobs yelling at a programmer for not implementing a button in the perfect shade of corn flower blue (#6495ED) and immediately sends him to the apple punitive chamber, consisting of a HP Compaq running Vista Basic.
There are 2 software development departments and 2 hardware development sections in Apple. For software there is the Apple core team, Apple Open Source team. In hardware there is the Apple systems and management team and the iDevice team. Since the OSX kernel consists of a BSD darwin kernel there is no real need for low level programmers and as such the entirety of the Apple core team consists of UI designers and photoshop junkies. All software churned out from the core team is designed in a program strikingly similar to Visual Studio's form designer but with Cocoa Objective C generated instead. The 16 hour day (Jobs demands 16 hour days since he himself never sleeps) of a core dev involves lining up the right shade of chrome with the latest photoshopped graphite button and maintaining the correct color scheme, not an easy job at all.
The Apple open source team involves a little bit more coding, which is mandated to be done in TextEdit or the option of a $80 third party mac text editor. The Apple open source team doesn't actually create much code but searches the internet for interesting BSD licensed software and modifies it as it's own through obfuscation and conversion to objective C. Many of the items a mac user sees comes from the open source world stamped by apple such as the ability to play music taken from 67 different originally linux based players, CD burning, and the overall ability to click a mouse. Apple's legal department has no qualms about this practice and has assured many that since most of the code is BSD and if any is GPLed many Linux hippies should be grateful that Apple fostered WebKit by using KHTML and adding some Gecko bloat. Perhaps one of the most important items that the open source team has done to date is use parts of the FreeBSD to keep the kernel up to date.
There's not much to say about the Apple systems and management team. I suppose they can be classified in to desktop and laptop systems. Because hardware work is beneath Apple in general and thought of being only worthy of Windows Users and as such can be found working on these beauties in the starbucks bathroom. Desktops are currently made by buying dell machines and putting them in Lian Li cases, where the majority of the costs goes to buying titanium Apple emblems to paste on the sides. Laptops consists of the rebranding of only the most silver and black Sony Viaos but talk has been going around about rebranding Asus EeePCs for a new Apple netbook but you didn't hear that from me, for fear of my life.
The iDevice team's job is to develop for the ipod, iphone, itouch, and many other portable electronics apple may release in the future. Their jobs are very interconnected with the open source team as well as the core dev team. Using firmware from random samsung devices and giving it an OSX skin the ipod stands as a shining example that infringement only applies to greasy file sharers and that the music player remains the best in market
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've heard
It just works.
said about Linux? The biggest problem with Linux is it doesn't "just work". It in fact often "doesn't work" unless you go hunting for patches (which are almost always third party) and install them and all sorts of other stuff just to get stuff to work halfway decently. Linux only "just works" if you've gotten someone else to either vet the hardware and specific models or set up the computer themselves. And then it stops "just working" whenever you want to install any new applications that aren't
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux "just works" unless you have unsupported hardware. Same as Apple -- except that a lot more hardware is supported under Linux, these days. There's a reason Apple doesn't allow third-party boxes to run OS X.
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Funny)
Linux "just works" unless you have unsupported hardware.
So it works unless it doesn't. Who woulda thought it! Behold the miracle of open source!
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Funny)
The real difference is that with Linux it can be tricky to tell if any particular bit of hardware is supported.
With Apple it's obvious - if it's supported, it costs twice as much.
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:4, Funny)
To pull out an ancient quote:
Unix is user friendly, it's just picky about who it makes friends with.
I guess Linux just doesn't like you.
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, at least with Ubuntu, the list of unsupported hardware includes such minor things as all Nvidia graphics cards. They work fine with the (supported) default driver, but without any OpenGL.
I've installed the official driver manually, and now every time there's a kernel upgrade (which seems to happen about once every other week right now), the graphical user interface breaks, and I'm dropped back to the command line. Then I have to reinstall the Nvidia driver manually again to get back to work. It took me about two hours to locate the problem and find the solution for the first time (it's not like the system tells you what is broken, it just doesn't work).
Note that the kernel upgrades pop up automatically with the message "there are important updates you should install" and are only a click on "install" away.
So, tell me how my mother should be able to handle that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She would call you, just like she does now when anything goes wrong with her Windows or Mac machine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:4, Informative)
They're a click on "install" and a password away. Make sure she knows that when the computer asks for a password, it's asking to do something that could seriously screw things up, and should only be done with expert help.
Besides, you do know that the official nVidia driver is available in Ubuntu through the "Restricted Drivers" window, right? These get updated with the kernel, so this shouldn't even be a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If your mother can't run one script from a command line
nope
and follow the prompts to reinstall the driver
she would have called me by then
then she probably doesn't need the extra 3D performance from a proprietary binary video driver either.
uh wtf? So you're saying just because my mother enjoys playing some casual games that require 3D once in a while, she has to become a Linux wizard who's able to recompile drivers on the command line? Don't you think you're a bit out of touch with reality there?
To phrase it differently (and more generically): How is the desire for using the hardware you payed for to its fullest potential (or close to it) related to the requirement that you learn programming?
To move to anot
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Funny)
unsupported hardware.
No such thing in Linux. There's "experimental driver", though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The biggest problem with Linux is it doesn't "just work". It in fact often "doesn't work" unless you go hunting for patches . . .
he, he
Roll up! Roll up! chuck that ole 2010 in the bin and welcome to version 1.1 of 1993!
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:4, Insightful)
In that case you should have your hearing checked. When something does not work in Linux the reaction is 'make it work, the source is available, did you file a bug report' - a marked difference I'd say. For the average user the end result might be similar but in Linux' case all it takes is a not so average user to make it work.
Another very big difference becomes apparent when that user finally makes it work while another similar user makes his Apple-branded product do the same...
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, please. This isn't done to make things "simple", it's done to make you pay more. That's all there is to it, you're just making excuses. Ever wondered why you Mac Fanboys are so despised? Perhaps you wouldn't be if you didn't feel the need to do ridiculous PR exercises to save Apple's image all the time. They're not working for your best interest, so you should feel no obligation to work for them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The process needs to be simple and automatic to fit in with Apple's idea of what these devices should be like. Pairing 2 devices isn't (yet) and so they don't do it (yet.)
The process should be incredibly simple when you make the hardware and the software for both devices. It would be trivial to have a single push-button activation on one device which scans for local devices and triggers an acceptance prompt on the other device - bam, single step pairing. If they're not allowing this then it's not for reasons of UI complexity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
and yet, some other providers manage to provide unlimited voice and data for less.
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, the carriers are bound and determined to call the crappy plan "unlimited" because it makes them sound generous. They don't want to have a "we really (well, sorta) mean it this time" plan because then they start to look like the liars they are. They ESPECIALLY don't want to start talking about $/GB because then customers might (GASP!) start comparison shopping.
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo. They aren't allowed to fix prices, because that's illegal. So they do the next best thing. They make it impossible for the customer to compare prices for what he is getting.
This is like buying a car. Every time I've tried to buy a car, the salesman has tried to make the deal more complicated. Let's talk trade in! Nope. I'm selling my car separately. Well how about financing? Nope, I'm paying cash. What about this nifty special warranty the dealer offers? I'd rather just hand you the money than going through that charade. And no, I'm not handing you the money. Well, an extended manufacturer warranty? I'll self-insure, thank you.
You see, we both know on some level that what I want to buy is a car. The dealer is trying to trick me into forgetting that.
What I want from a mobile carrier is bandwidth. Period. I don't want to use *their* app store. I don't want to use *their* messaging service. I don't want a relationship with them other than this: I pay them monthly, and I get to make/receive phone calls and send data.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, my 3 year old Nokia (S40) can do it via Bluetooth, and so can any other S40 Nokia that I've seen.
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would pay more for the option. But I'm still waiting for AT&T to enable tethering on the iPhone.
While I'm here... my biggest gripe is no multi-tasking. Apple enables multi-tasking, they sell me an iPad... it's that simple. Heck, I'd take limited background APIs. But the fact that no third-party multitasking is allowed will keep the device out of my hands.
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're confusing background processes with the term multitasking. iPad and iPhone both do multitasking just fine. You could be operating an app or playing a game, take a call and get back to whatever you were doing since the bulk of the application have a clever way of pausing and resuming.
Background apps which aren't made by Apple (iPod, email, ical) are a terrible idea. Aside with the battery drain issues and bandwidth usage problems it eats into CPU cycles. As a developer I only test with stock devices and don't have the resources to test my application against 140,000 apps to see how they play together, especially when I'm pushing the CPU to its developer alloted limits.
Why in the world would I want to share cycles with apps from other developers on a task oriented portable device? It's bad enough there are unforeseen push notifications from different vendors fucking up the UX, now I have to bend over backwards and play nice with every resource hog on the app store? No thanks.
I think you'd be better off with a laptop. Background apps are bullshit, I don't care how well they are coded. They introduce uncertainty into the mix and I don't want to guess what my users are going to experience.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By that logic, my 5 year old cheap dumbphone could multitask, because I could run the built in mp3 player at the same time as the built in email client.
(And I just love that as soon as Apple drop multitasking, we have no end of people claiming it's a great thing. Should netbooks, laptops or desktops not multitask either? Why, when MS said they were going to limit Windows 7 on netbooks to 3 applications, didn't we have praise, with people saying they should go further and only allow 1 application?)
Why in the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why in the world would I want to share cycles with apps from other developers on a task oriented portable device?
Indeed! It doesn't work for you, therefore it works for no one. I'm glad that Apple made this choice for users so that no one would have to make it for themselves.
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, my experience from using Symbian smartphones is that it doesn't work great with other phones. My problems included constant memory leaks (both from 3rd party apps and apps that came with the phones), CPU hogging while running in the background, apps never shutting down (even when told to) and instead just living on as 5% CPU and RAM-stealing zombies, most of the time on my last Nokia phone I would get about 60-80 hours before it would lock up so badly due to low memory that it wouldn't even allow me to answer incoming calls(!) and I'd be forced to "reboot" it by removing the battery. If this was the only Symbian phone I'd owned I would've been inclined to assume it was a problem with that specific phone, but I've had these problems on two Symbian phones of my own and I've also seen this happen on phones belonging to friends of mine.
/Mikael
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plainly, as with any other multitasking system, such problems depend on the apps.
You've just chosen better-behaved applications than GP has.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The key to computer design isn't to give the users the features you think they will find useful; it's to give the users the ability to decide what features they want. That's why computing is so wonderful: if you give people universal Turing machines they can do all sorts of things on them that you never thought of, and thus your product is more useful than it otherwise would be.
Some people just use their netbook as a net-book -- as a gateway to the internet, email, etc. But I'm glad that there's a full comp
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/27/ipad-sdk-3-2-details-external-display-file-sharing-system-no-multitasking/ [macrumors.com]
Apple has unleashed iPhone OS 3.2 SDK to developers today to prepare for the launch of the Apple iPad. The new iPhone OS 3.2 only runs on the iPad device and will not run on the iPhone or iPod Touch.
- No Multitasking. Only one application runs at a time according to official documentation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is "user experience" always the standard answer to these kind of questions? If you particularly want or need multitasking then the practise is quite blatantly diminishing your user experience. What's the harm in having it disabled by default and giving power users the option to enable it - even if it means looking up how to do so and trawling through a few menus, that short term initial hit to user experience will be cancelled out for that user by the long term benefits.
Am I just being too cynical/paran
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't that be "You sir just sent the English Language screaming throw a tree shredder"? ;)
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Funny)
Steve Jobs could through a baby into a industrial tree shredder and you would still defend him.
In his defense the baby was being kind of a dick.
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Funny)
Steve Jobs could through a baby into a industrial tree shredder and you would still defend him.
In his defense the baby was being kind of a dick.
Yeah we don't know what was that baby's problem.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Steve Jobs could through a baby into a industrial tree shredder and you would still defend him.
In his defense the baby was being kind of a dick.
Yeah we don't know what was that baby's problem.
I heard it was a crack baby, so it's an act of mercy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And because this is Apple in question, fanboys would just join in thinking throwing babies into an industrial tree shedder makes them look super cool.
And the haters would come out and say "I don't want to throw babies into a shredder, I want to to shred kittens. Why won't Apple let me do this, WRYYYY ? OMG Apple is teh suxxorz."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And the haters would come out and say "I don't want to throw babies into a shredder, I want to to shred kittens. Why won't Apple let me do this, WRYYYY ? OMG Apple is teh suxxorz."
Surely whether you want to shred kittens and/or babies it's fundamentally the same process? What you're saying is that Apple doesn't understand Object Oriented Programming.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You get what you pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but at least part of the problem is, why am I expected to buy separate data plans for each mobile device that I have? I have paid for a data plan for my phone, so why should I have to pay for an additional plan for either the iPad or the MiFi?
That's the reason you get such a discount compared to a $60 a month 5 GB plan...
What's the reason? Is the "unlimited" data plan for the iPhone or iPad capped under 5GB? If AT&T wanted to charge $60 for 5GB, they easily could have done that, but they chose to charge $30 for "unlimited" data. If I use a set amount of data, what difference does it make to them if some of that data passes to another device?
Let's just be honest hear: They're charging too much and imposing arbitrary restrictions because there's minimal competition, minimal regulation, and they believe that their customers will put up with being charged for a separate plan for each and every device they own.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the world doesn't. If you're stuck on a carrier with CDMA, you have to. But if you're using GSM/HSPA/EDGE/etc, you don't.
YOu take the SIM out of your phone, stick it in your MiFi. I'd say to stick it in your iPad, but that requires a micro-SIM, in which
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you happen to be running an open source OS on your phone, you get to pay 3x the amount you'd pay for THE EXACT SAME SERVICE if your phone ran Symbian.
I don't think that's true. If you buy an Android phone, they force you to buy an unlimited text and data package; but this costs the same as adding unlimited text and data to any of their regular packages. And, if you bring your own Android phone, TMobile isn't going to know, or care, about it: they'll charge you the same for data access as they would charge anyone else.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll pay $60 a month then.
How are they going to stop it though? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I'd like to know how he thinks he's going to stop it. Nothing like telling someone 'no' to challenge them.
Re:How are they going to stop it though? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chances of making the process annoying, complex, and/or risky enough that relatively few people will bother? Pretty much 100%.
When all you see is the aggregate profit/loss numbers, those relatively few will be basically irrelevant. If they somehow manage to use massive amounts of data, AT&T will just ban them anyway, and probably charge them a stiff ETF for the privilege.
That's the thing to keep in mind: Content-level DRM is doomed because it only has to be cracked once, it can spread like wildfire in the clear from that point forward. Device-level DRM only has to be reverse-engineered once(per iPhone OS update, hardware revision, silent baseband revision bump, etc.) but the crack has to be applied per-device. TOS-level control can be circumvented merely by ignoring it; but you face the constant threat of termination and possible penalties.
hackers say yes tethering (Score:2)
how long before it's cracked?
Re:hackers say yes tethering (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it depends on the size of the rock you choose to crack it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully not a long time. However, given that the second run of iPhone 3GS aren't completely jailbroken yet (they require a tethered jailbreak every reboot), Apple may have learned and make the new iPads even more difficult to jailbreak.
Now, given that Apple's developers make stupid bugs, if you're planning on this, I would suggest buying an early revision iPad as it will likely have the buggy boot ROM allowing an easy jailbreak. A few months down the road (when a jailbreak hap
This is why I'll never own anything apple. (Score:2, Insightful)
Steve's deathgrip on what I can and can't do with _my_ device... Why would anyone subject themselves to that?
Re:This is why I'll never own anything apple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because the devices his company produces do what most people want, and do those things really well.
I'm not going to argue with your main point but there are a couple of statements you make that I do disagree with.
Disclosure: I just got over a 36 hour iPhone binge, where I thought my old phone had broken and it turned out that the iPhone was the cheapest smartphone I could actually get given my upgrade status, so I tried one. I returned it the next day.
I also own an iPod, and I do love that.
Given my experience with the iPhone (and the iPod), I don't believe these devices do anything particularly well. What I think is that they don't do anything badly. That's a different thing. Apple is really good at not fucking things up for most people, and at not allowing most people to fuck things up for themselves. They are not very good at doing anything that's particularly amazing, or inspiring, or whatever you want to call it.
Just one example. Turn on the iPhone and what do you see? (I mean after you "slide to unlock", which you're forced to do every time you turn the screen on.) Yep, a sea of basically random tiny icons. This is the "revolutionary" interface some people talk about - random tiny icons. The home screen on the iPhone is almost totally useless. Without the tiny little message indicator above the email icon and the date on the calendar icon, there would be no reason to even look at it.
Most people buying iPhones have never used another smartphone, or at least not another good one, so they don't know what they're missing. I'm not sure they're going to be as forgiving of the same interface on the iPad.
It is an appliance for me, and I am happy that it just does the job I want it to do.
That's fine, and my wife loves her iPhone too and I'm happy that she's happy with it.
But what's wrong with giving people options? That was one of the reasons I returned my iPhone. I am completely fine with people getting a device and then just not even bothering to touch it except for making calls and sending emails using all the default stuff that it comes with. My wife got hers because it supports Japanese natively (which Windows Mobile doesn't and I don't think Android does either), and she can easily write emails in either language using the virtual keyboard. She never even bothered with the app store until literally six months after she got it. That's okay, her priority is just to have a phone with Japanese support that works out of the box and she loves it for that.
But what's wrong with giving the rest of us the option to do more? Why limit it? I mean seriously, why? It is borderline sadistic on the part of Jobs, to basically say "our phone is really powerful but WE WILL NOT LET YOU tap that power, and you therefore must deal with the experience created for the lowest common denominator even though this device is capable of doing anything you might want it to do."
I mean, you can't even disable "slide to unlock". You can't alter the home screen. You can't replace the weaksauce email app that doesn't even seem to have a "mark all as read" function that I could find. Why not? How does it hurt anybody to put in the option to do those basic things? What, they're afraid of support calls? So you make a function that's buried in some hidden menu that says "geek mode" and you put a little checkbox next to it. And you bury the instructions on how to find that menu on some members-only web site, and then it gets distributed through sites like Slashdot that only geeks read anyway. The geeks are happy, the normals are happy, what's the problem?
My first computer was an Apple II, and I loved it precisely because it was so open. This is a different Apple these days, and it's unlikely that I'll buy another multi-purpose device from them again. I do like my iPod, but it is intended to do one thing: play media. Just not screwing up a device's intended function is enough on a single-purpose device, especially because so many other manufacturers do. But I need more than that on a device that's intended to be "smart", which to me means it's not supposed to be limited to the functionality it has when it arrives in the box.
Of course... (Score:5, Funny)
Steve must produce additional sizes of iPod Touch before they can join to form iVoltron.
Didn't he say this.. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure he said this two days ago. Yep... here it is:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361029,00.asp [pcmag.com]
2 days ago...
I used to come here to get the lates tech news.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and BTW: I bet it will tether to my G1.
It's getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy, don't buy it.
Re:It's getting ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
You use electricity in your vacuum cleaner, your blender, and your hair dryer, and you pay for each, even though you don't use them at the same time. Nobody complains about that.
The difference is the unlimited plans. If consumers would consent to paying straight metered rates for bandwidth, like we do for electricity and gas/oil, we could be free of all these stupid packages and deals and calling circles and contracts.
Cell phone service and broadband internet are commodity utilities, yet they're marketed as "lifestyle" services -- which means, expensive advertising that appeals to emotions.
I hope that, before every device in our lives gets connected, that bandwidth becomes as boring and predictable as electricity or heating oil.
Re:It's getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we supposed to keep paying up per device? It's highly unreasonable, specially since most people don't use two devices at the same time.
We're going through the same thing right now with wireless telcos that we did with ISP's about 10-15 years ago. Some people probably don't remember it, others may have actually been too young to really know about it, but there was a time when the cable and phone companies considered having a router on their service as a terms of use violation. They would cut you off if they discovered it. People would actually hide their routers whenever they'd have to make a service call (I remember doing this!). They charged for internet use per connection, so to them using a router was "theft" because you could use one router for many different computers.
Of course, today that sounds ridiculous, and ISP's even give away wireless routers. Verizon's standard DSL and FiOS modems are wireless routers.
So hopefully in 10 years (or less), we'll be at that same point with the wireless telcos, where they realize they'll actually get more business by simplifying and letting people do what they want with their connections. And they actually will sell their service per household or subscriber, and not per device connection.
do what you want with an apple product? (Score:2)
good heavens! That's crazy talk.
Forged Headers? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Slashdot, wake up people.
How hard is it to forge headers, it's not like his email was signed with a cert?
Maybe I should send a story in with fake headers and see if it gets posted...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Forged Headers? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is we have no reason to believe those emails came from jobs, anyone representing jobs, or even anyone sharing a point of view with jobs. It could have been some 12 year old eating cheetos and hotpockets while trolling mac forums in his mother's basement using a 15 year old PC running netbsd.
Is that likely? Probably not, but acting like headers tell you anything is idiotic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Faking email headers is trivial. Getting Steve Jobs personal email so that you can fake a reply is slightly harder.
Re:Forged Headers? (Score:5, Informative)
1) someone is hacking Steve Jobs incoming email and read the question and replied
2) someone guessed that Steve Jobs was asked this questions and then coincidentally spoofed an answer to person they correctly guessed asked it
3) Steve Jobs replied.
number 1 is big news - Steve Jobs email is not secure!!!!
number 2 is conspiracy theory material
number 3 confirms what Steve Jobs said in a pcmag article 2 days ago and seems the logically obvious choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
4) someone faked the entire exchange so they could get links to their website spread around the internet.
5) any number of other possibilities, limited only by your imagination.
We don't know what happened because email headers do not provide authentication.
Newsflash, if you are not using GPG/PGP, which apparently Steve Jobs is not, then your email most certainly is not secure. This is only big news to anyone that doesn't know how email works.
Now perso
Re: (Score:2)
"Slashat.se claims they e-mailed Job" (Score:3, Funny)
This is 90% likely to be FUD... (Score:2)
...because it will most likely get hacked just like the Kindle and iPhone were. Unless by some miracle the iPad becomes un-'jailbreakable.'
Not just 'No' ... (Score:2)
Ouch. (Score:2, Insightful)
At the risk of being moderated "Troll"...
What a jerk.
Tosh.0 (Score:4, Funny)
"We never even turned it on!"
Apple flipping the bird to users?! (Score:4, Funny)
It's a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
FTFA (Score:5, Funny)
Jobs's reply--"No. Sent from my iPhone"
The big news here is that even Steve Jobs himself can't figure out how to turn off that annoying sig line.
Good news for everyone else (Score:3, Insightful)
almost all WinMob and Android phones can do wifi -> 3g routing, so your iPad will be able to tether without even realizing it's tethering. Bluetooth -> 3G and Bluetooth -> Wifi would prolly not work, though, if the iPad's BT stack is anything like the iPhone's.
I'd be leery of buying from a company with such a customer unfriendly attitude though. Their goal is clearly to sell more 3G upgrades, on which they take 90% margin.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Christ, you sound like an AA meeting.
Re:When they came for the iPhone users (Score:5, Funny)
FYI, there's also AAA, C, D and 9 volts meetings.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:When they came for the iPhone users (Score:4, Interesting)
I just spent the last three hours debugging and fixing Xorg on my Intel Q35 onboard graphics adapter, under the Fedora 12 Linux distro. My eyes are bleary, and I have to be at work in five hours, but I actually feel pretty good. I read your comment and started smirking like a jackass.
Short version: Xorg and the kernel have completely fux0rd the current (2.9-ish) Intel GPU support. For some reason, Fedora shipped this pile of steaming crap with F12, and so many people with fast, stable, accelerated graphics (beautiful Compiz!) under F10 and F11 have found themselves sorely disappointed by F12. I was one of those people, this weekend, when I finally got around to upgrading to F12.
But I feel good, not shitty. My problem is solved: I have Compiz working fine and fast at full res. I spent some quality time with Google, and I re-learned how to use 'xrandr' and 'xorg.conf', and I hard-coded all the modelines I need (which the X driver can't seem to figure out, on its own), and there you go.
Yeah, I'm a smug bastard. And any Fedora release certainly ships with more bugs than any OSX release. But dammit, it's nice to be able to fix stuff when it breaks, instead of staring mutely like an ape at some smooth, sealed, non-user-serviceable $700 white plastic brick.
Much as I want to strangle certain members of FESCo right now, I still wouldn't trade my F12 install DVD for anything else. (Except maybe F11. Those fuckers.)
Re:When they came for the ... (Score:4, Funny)
When they came for the people who misappropriated Niemoeller for stupid shit they suddenly realized they were going to a much larger lake of flaming brimstone than they had originally thought necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When they came for the iPhone users (Score:4, Informative)
In what way is the DRM in Windows 7 harming me?
Tthe glitch where it thinks it's been pirated and down grades you to changing to a black background and nags you to buy a real copy (even though you are using one)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In what way is the DRM in Windows 7 harming me?
Tthe glitch where it thinks it's been pirated and down grades you to changing to a black background and nags you to buy a real copy (even though you are using one)
It must not be nagging very effectively if he hasn't noticed it yet.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not so sure, because this is exactly the type of device we've been looking for to give to our sales reps. We have a web-app product we like to demo to people. Potential customers usually don't like playing with the app when it's on a sales rep laptop or netbook. Many of the people I think have a fear of using somebody elses computer and they'll "screw something up". Plus it costs us $60 per month per sales rep for the wireless cards. We tried using iPod Touches/iPhones for demos, but the screens ar
Re:yet another bad iPad-related choice... (Score:4, Insightful)
A couple other people have pointed out niche business uses for the iPad. The general market may not be the /. crowd, but it's not your niche, either.
And if the iPad browser doesn't support your web app just the way you want it you can't install a browser that does. Which kinda sucks. Apple's control over the device, to me, makes it poorly suited to any business use.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My general experience is that if you stick to the specs, web-apps work pretty well the same way in Safari, FF, Opera, and Chrome. Until Apple turns Webkit into IE, then it's time to look at other platforms. But as I said in the OP, the full browser app renders perfectly on the iPhone/Touch but the screen is too small to make an effective demo.
But Apple's control makes it relatively easy to work with in a small shop. Why? We know exactly what the rules are and have a much smaller number of variations to
Re: (Score:2)
I keep wondering the same thing, but you can't ignore the Apple marketing machine and the people who love all their shiny toys (even I enjoy my MBP and iPhone). The problem is if someone already has an iPhone and a MB/MBP I don't see what the iPad brings to the equation. I guess it could simply take the e-reader market?
I've read a lot of people saying that the iPad will replace their laptop of some sort. That might work if they only consume content, but even my non-techie friends seem to do a lot of typi