iOS 7 @ WWDC in June

[Alan Browne]

Various Mac following news sites indicate that iOS 7 will be announced
at the next WWDC in June. Some of the sites expect it to not only sport
a major Ive do-over but anticipate a new "killer" app as well.

Will skeumorphism finally be put to rest? (Please!).

Very cool WWDC logo:
http://devimages.apple.com.edgekey.net/wwdc/images/wwdc13-about-main.jpg

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Drinking American [US] beer is like making love in a canoe: F**ing close
to water." -- Canadian saying.

[Alan Browne]

Indeed, though I usually save that for Coors.

American Airlines coffee qualifies as well.

There are a lot of decent American beers but they aren't made by Coors,
Budweiser and the other big labels.

[WhySoSerious?]

Not true in the case of Samuel Adams' beer.

Actually, many of the "micro-brews" are pretty hefty now. NONE of the
"domestic" beers are worth a shit.

Save Sam's beer.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <klj9de$g45$1...@dont-email.me>,

Canadians like to have sex "doggy style" so they can both watch the
hockey game.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:49:00 -0400, Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <klj9de$g45$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "houn...@yahoo.co.uk" <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28/04/2013 14:02, Alan Browne wrote:
>> > Various Mac following news sites indicate that iOS 7 will be announced
>> > at the next WWDC in June. Some of the sites expect it to not only sport
>> > a major Ive do-over but anticipate a new "killer" app as well.
>> >
>> > Will skeumorphism finally be put to rest? (Please!).
>> >
>> > Very cool WWDC logo:
>> > http://devimages.apple.com.edgekey.net/wwdc/images/wwdc13-about-main.jpg
>> >
>> > --
>> > "A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
>> > -Pierre Berton
>>
>> Drinking American [US] beer is like making love in a canoe: F**ing close
>> to water." -- Canadian saying.
>
>Canadians like to have sex "doggy style" so they can both watch the
>hockey game.

Makes the living room couch placement look pretty funny though.

That end of the couch gets pretty nasty pretty quickly too. But yous
guys don't care about that though, eh?

[George Kerby]

On 4/28/13 11:47 AM, in article fgkqn8hmat3ii2idn...@4ax.com,

"Smoke, eh?" afterwards...

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

Depends on what one is smoking.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-04-28 11:49, Kurt Ullman wrote:

> Canadians like to have sex "doggy style" so they can both watch the
> hockey game.

The goal, of course, is to time the climax with ... a goal !!!

He shoots ! He Scores ! (this way the neighbours just think the noise
is cheering for the goal a hockey player just scored !)

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Samuel Adams, out of Boston, is rather good. I think that there's a New
York brand that has been around for a while and is rather good.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-04-28 12:47, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

> Makes the living room couch placement look pretty funny though.

That is what "position 10" (named after Guy Lafleur) in the canadian
book of sex is for. Allows both to watch the hockey game on a regularly
positioned chesterfield while making love.

[JF Mezei]

IOS 7's announcement in *june* will have to be boring unless the new
iPhone is announced at same time.

Consider for instance Apple adding NFC functionality in the next iPhone.
This would remain a secret until Apple launches the next iPhone. So they
can't announce NFC capabilities at the june WWDC.

But they can announce features that will be available on existing iPhones.

Obviously, trusted developpers will work under NDS outside of WWDC to
prepare for the real launch of the next iPhone.

[Alan Browne]

I was going to mention Sam Adams as my usual northeast beer when in the US.

[nospam]

In article <517d8a11$0$5950$c3e8da3$5077...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> IOS 7's announcement in *june* will have to be boring unless the new
> iPhone is announced at same time.

no it won't. every single ios release (other than the original) has
occurred before the corresponding phone was announced.

> Consider for instance Apple adding NFC functionality in the next iPhone.
> This would remain a secret until Apple launches the next iPhone. So they
> can't announce NFC capabilities at the june WWDC.

ios 6 was announced last june but they didn't say the forthcoming
iphone would have a bigger display until it was released a few months
later, although it wasn't hard to figure out based on the new apis.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-04-28 17:02, nospam wrote:

> no it won't. every single ios release (other than the original) has
> occurred before the corresponding phone was announced.

In last week's financial anasyst teleconference call, Tim Cook said that
next new product launch would be this fall. This pretty much prevents
him to launching in June. Surprises can still hapen though, but SEC
regulations are not too kind on CEOs who misdirect financial analsysts.

Had Apple wanted to keep the door open for a new iPhone in June, Cook
would have worded it as "we plan great new products this year" instead
of specifying "this fall".

[nospam]

In article <517d8fda$0$16996$c3e8da3$76a7...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > no it won't. every single ios release (other than the original) has
> > occurred before the corresponding phone was announced.
>
> In last week's financial anasyst teleconference call, Tim Cook said that
> next new product launch would be this fall.

he hinted at stuff coming in the fall and into next year, but he *also*
said a new product mix will affect earnings for the june quarter. that
means new stuff coming soon, likely at wwdc and possibly before that.

> This pretty much prevents
> him to launching in June. Surprises can still hapen though, but SEC
> regulations are not too kind on CEOs who misdirect financial analsysts.

it doesn't prevent anything. one possibility is announce in june and
ship in july, putting revenue in the september quarter, which is
'fall'.

[Charles]

In article <klk0h4$n6j$6...@dont-email.me>, <"houn...@yahoo.co.uk">
wrote:

> Samuel Adams, out of Boston, is rather good. I think that there's a New
> York brand that has been around for a while and is rather good.

Sam Adams was the one of the first US beers that was good but now there
are hundreds of US beers that are better than Sam Adams.

--
Charles

[Charles]

In article <4-Gdncanz81KFuDM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> I was going to mention Sam Adams as my usual northeast beer when in the US.

Sam Adams is a good default choice and is widely available but there
are many better now than Sam Adams.

--
Charles

[nospam]

In article <michelle-D3AE93...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > IOS 7's announcement in *june* will have to be boring unless the new
> > > iPhone is announced at same time.
> >
> > no it won't. every single ios release (other than the original) has
> > occurred before the corresponding phone was announced.
>

> iPhone 3G and iPhone OS 2 were both released on July 11, 2008. You are
> correct for the iPhone 3Gs and later models.

actually, iphone os 2 & the app store came out a day before the iphone
3g did, but that isn't what i was talking about.

i was not clear enough. given the context, this is about whether the
next iphone will be announced at the same time as the june ios 7
announcement. it won't, nor will the ios 7 announcement be
intentionally boring, which is a crazy idea to begin with.

the next iphone announcement will be at a later time and will ship a
week or two after that, just like it has for the last 5 years.

it's not about the ios customer release, which is always at the same
time as the corresponding iphone release. a few days earlier is
insignificant and is actually desirable to spread the server load.

in fact, ios 2 was announced as far back as october, 2007, some *nine*
months before the iphone 3g, when apple said an app sdk would be coming
in february, 2008. they missed that deadline and it was demoed in early
march, developers were given several versions over the following months
so they could write apps, and the iphone 3g was released in july, 2008.

ios 3 & 4 were announced & demoed in spring and the phone in summer.
ios 5 & 6 were announced & demoed at wwdc, with the phone in the fall.

ios 7 will be announced & demoed at wwdc (already confirmed), and based
on history, the next iphone will be announced a few months later, most
likely in the fall. there is talk of a 'low cost' iphone which might
mean a change to that pattern but that's not very likely. it will
probably be released alongside the next iphone, if it exists.

[George Kerby]

On 4/28/13 2:55 PM, in article 2kvqn8hn9nvogkl0p...@4ax.com,

Happy 80th Willy N!!!

[JF Mezei]

On 13-04-28 19:50, nospam wrote:

> announcement. it won't, nor will the ios 7 announcement be
> intentionally boring, which is a crazy idea to begin with.

It isn't a question of being intentionally boring. It is a question of
keeping the hardware surprises for the hardware keynote, so this limits
the announcement of software features that will rely on the new hardware
since it would be tantamount to annoucing the new hardware.

For instance, if at WWDC, Apple were to announce a new payment API
and/or data transfer API between 2 iPhones, it would be tantamount to
confirming the next iphone will have an NFC chip.

I have to assume that a small number of key and trusted developers will
get such info under a strict NDA with Tim Cook's sicilian cousins ready
with fitted cement shoes for any of the NDA participants leaking the info.

> ios 5 & 6 were announced & demoed at wwdc, with the phone in the fall.

But only a subset of new features were announced at WWDC. The rest were
announced with the hardware. (Consider Siri, it was not announced with
IOS, it was announced with the 4s hardware keynote).

The iPhone4 was an amazing leap/advancement, and ever since, Apple has
disapointed mostly because unrealistic expectations don't match the
unfortunate reality that smartphones have matured and will just evolve
from now on.

There are things Apple could do, which, while very bold for Apple, would
be humbug for the market (providing a file system, NFC data transfers
between phones etc). But there are also things where Apple could truly
innovate and leapfrog the market.


There is pressure on Apple to prove that it can still innovate plenty in
a post Jobs era. Lets see if Apple is still capable of re-inventing the
smartphone. Perhaps a new UI ? New gestures ?

Will it let us park all useless applications like Newstand into a folder
? (that would be a major philosophical change for Apple).

> likely in the fall. there is talk of a 'low cost' iphone which might
> mean a change to that pattern but that's not very likely. it will
> probably be released alongside the next iphone, if it exists.

While those rumours of the el-cheapo plastic iPhone circulate, Apple
comes out with financials that appear to shpow solid market for the iPhone4.

My guess would be an upgraded iPhone4 with same CPU as the iPhone 5S,
but clocked lower speed, enhancements in power consuption and other
cospetic changes. (and perhaps internal changes to make its assembly
faster/cheaper). (and of course, ise the new connector and put
headphones at bottom, probably using common parts with the 5S for the
speaker, headphonejack, connector and microphone.

[nospam]

In article <517dd98d$0$43926$c3e8da3$9dec...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > announcement. it won't, nor will the ios 7 announcement be
> > intentionally boring, which is a crazy idea to begin with.
>
> It isn't a question of being intentionally boring.

it's not going to be intentionally boring. nobody intends for something
to be boring.

sometimes it works out that way, but that's not the goal.

> It is a question of
> keeping the hardware surprises for the hardware keynote, so this limits
> the announcement of software features that will rely on the new hardware
> since it would be tantamount to annoucing the new hardware.

there will be plenty of software features to show because they need to
get developers on board and write apps for the new apis and make sure
their older apps don't crash on ios 7.

there are also rumours of jony ive removing the skeuomorphic crap, so
they'll want to show the various apps without the superfluous leather
stitching and other ugliness. that's not really a 'feature' though.

> > ios 5 & 6 were announced & demoed at wwdc, with the phone in the fall.
>
> But only a subset of new features were announced at WWDC. The rest were
> announced with the hardware. (Consider Siri, it was not announced with
> IOS, it was announced with the 4s hardware keynote).

siri wasn't announced with ios because it's not part of ios.

although siri is software, it only works on recent hardware. it does
not work on an iphone 3gs or iphone 4, both of which can run ios 5 and
ios 6.

> Will it let us park all useless applications like Newstand into a folder
> ? (that would be a major philosophical change for Apple).

newstand is actually a folder, which is why it can't be put into
another folder (outside of that hack where it crashes if you try to use
it).

> > likely in the fall. there is talk of a 'low cost' iphone which might
> > mean a change to that pattern but that's not very likely. it will
> > probably be released alongside the next iphone, if it exists.
>
> While those rumours of the el-cheapo plastic iPhone circulate, Apple
> comes out with financials that appear to shpow solid market for the iPhone4.
>
> My guess would be an upgraded iPhone4 with same CPU as the iPhone 5S,
> but clocked lower speed, enhancements in power consuption and other
> cospetic changes. (and perhaps internal changes to make its assembly
> faster/cheaper). (and of course, ise the new connector and put
> headphones at bottom, probably using common parts with the 5S for the
> speaker, headphonejack, connector and microphone.

there's no need for it to be the same cpu as the flagship phone. a
revamped iphone 4 made out of plastic would suffice. it's a very usable
phone as it is.

[bj]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> there are also rumours of jony ive removing the skeuomorphic crap, so
> they'll want to show the various apps without the superfluous leather
> stitching and other ugliness. that's not really a 'feature' though.
>

I don't think those backgrounds and decorative aspects are ugly. I'd hate
to see them get too sterile, dull, mechanical a look to everything.
bj

[Alan Browne]

Textures and backgrounds are fine. It's the silliness like "torn paper"
on the calendar and "leather" that is useless and not all that good looking.

The sharp, bold colour palette of Win 8 is very appealing. Lots of pop
and the arrangement just looks good.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.04.28 17:08 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-04-28 17:02, nospam wrote:
>
>> no it won't. every single ios release (other than the original) has
>> occurred before the corresponding phone was announced.
>
>
> In last week's financial anasyst teleconference call, Tim Cook said that
> next new product launch would be this fall. This pretty much prevents
> him to launching in June. Surprises can still hapen though, but SEC
> regulations are not too kind on CEOs who misdirect financial analsysts.

SEC's concern is that you promise too much, not too little. And it's
shareholders, not analysts, that the SEC is hoping to protect.

Further, there is no such thing as a requirement to tell the world what
your product rollout plan will be, not that when you say you'll do it in
the Fall that you can't leap ahead (which would be a benefit to
shareholders normally).

And "new" product might mean a really new product (iWatch, iTV) as
opposed to the next flavour of the iPhone or Mac.

Further still, the usual safe-harbor statement on the podcast page
allows for all sorts of flexibility including "reaction" to market
conditions.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of
<517dd98d$0$43926$c3e8da3$9dec...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> said:

>For instance, if at WWDC, Apple were to announce a new payment API
>and/or data transfer API between 2 iPhones, it would be tantamount to
>confirming the next iphone will have an NFC chip.

It would? Couldn't Bluetooth accomplish the same thing?

--
The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.04.29 18:05 , DevilsPGD wrote:
> In the last episode of
> <517dd98d$0$43926$c3e8da3$9dec...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> said:
>
>> For instance, if at WWDC, Apple were to announce a new payment API
>> and/or data transfer API between 2 iPhones, it would be tantamount to
>> confirming the next iphone will have an NFC chip.
>
> It would? Couldn't Bluetooth accomplish the same thing?

Data XFR yes. And that could support payments. (You still need a
payment processor unless people send Bitcoins to one another - which is
already supported with apps like Blockchain).

Payment by NFC would of course need the NFC component(s).

[bj]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2013.04.29 12:28 , bj wrote:
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> there are also rumours of jony ive removing the skeuomorphic crap, so
>>> they'll want to show the various apps without the superfluous leather
>>> stitching and other ugliness. that's not really a 'feature' though.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think those backgrounds and decorative aspects are ugly. I'd hate
>> to see them get too sterile, dull, mechanical a look to everything.
>
> Textures and backgrounds are fine. It's the silliness like "torn paper"
> on the calendar and "leather" that is useless and not all that good looking.
>
> The sharp, bold colour palette of Win 8 is very appealing. Lots of pop
> and the arrangement just looks good.

I think the Win8 Metro screen looks like a child's play mat, one of those
that comes in panels you put together like puzzle-pieces. I saw a nice
picture of that kind of thing in today's paper, with a bunch of little kids
on it, alongside an article about pre-school. Palette also looks rather
garish to me.

At least the screen evocations of a leather book or a scrap of paper don't
make my eyes hurt.

But designers now seem intent on appealing to children's sensibilities.
Maybe the focus-test-groups are their children's friends. The results don't
seem adult to me, let alone business-like. I hear some good things from
some users about the actual OS (once you manage to set it up to avoid the
stupid start-screen -- I'm not sure how easy that is to do but it would
have to be *done* somehow un-obvious, that's why there are so many articles
about it, it doesn't seem to be an easy setting turn-on/turn-off option)
but it presents itself in playclothes, not a serious outfit.
bj

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <Y8GdnX3uZ7ztn-LM...@giganews.com>,

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:

>On 2013.04.29 18:05 , DevilsPGD wrote:
>> In the last episode of
>> <517dd98d$0$43926$c3e8da3$9dec...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
>> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> said:
>>
>>> For instance, if at WWDC, Apple were to announce a new payment API
>>> and/or data transfer API between 2 iPhones, it would be tantamount to
>>> confirming the next iphone will have an NFC chip.
>>
>> It would? Couldn't Bluetooth accomplish the same thing?
>
>Data XFR yes. And that could support payments. (You still need a
>payment processor unless people send Bitcoins to one another - which is
>already supported with apps like Blockchain).
>
>Payment by NFC would of course need the NFC component(s).

True, if you limited yourself to NFC. Payment processing could be done
more easily for data-connected devices by having the device scan a QR
Barcode to retrieve the data required to start the process, and have the
confirmation be transmitted in return online when possible, falling back
to Bluetooth only when needed.

The cool part is that this would scale to online transactions too,
offering two-factor authorization by having me scan the screen as part
of the check-out process.

With a bit more effort (and likely too high a user-training barrier) you
could have the iPhone scan the code, the user approve the transaction
and transmit a signed transaction by displaying a barcode and having the
store scan it, similar to what is done with airline tickets. However,
this would require hardware deployment so it would be a much bigger
implementation challenge.

Either way you obviously need payment processors, but Apple has enough
clout to start down this road.

(I don't see it happening -- But if anyone could do it, Apple could do
it without NFC and without any other hardware changes -- If Apple wants
to get into this market, deploying it to every device 3GS and up all at
once would probably bring more devices online overnight than every
NFC-activated device ever sold)

[JF Mezei]

On 13-04-30 03:02, DevilsPGD wrote:

> True, if you limited yourself to NFC. Payment processing could be done
> more easily for data-connected devices by having the device scan a QR
> Barcode to retrieve the data required to start the process, and have the
> confirmation be transmitted in return online when possible, falling back
> to Bluetooth only when needed.

Not gonna happen.

Current systems as setup in Canada by CIC/Rogers and the coming Interac
ones do not use the internet connection at all for the transaction. Not
only insecure, but also involves the wireless carrier in the transaction
(which means banks have to share transaction costs with the carrier).

By using NFC, the transaction is between the phone and the paypass
terminal without involving the wireless carrier at all. It uses the same
network as with normal credit card, nothing special done by banks for it.

(the wireless carrier is involved in the provisioning of the encrypted
blob of credit card to storage on SIM card, but not in the actial
transactions).


If Aple wants to be different, it will become its own bank and use its
existing relationship with millions of customers so tat when you use
your iPhoe to make NFC purchases, it gets biled to your Apple account.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of

<517f820d$0$64324$c3e8da3$5e5e...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> said:

>On 13-04-30 03:02, DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> True, if you limited yourself to NFC. Payment processing could be done
>> more easily for data-connected devices by having the device scan a QR
>> Barcode to retrieve the data required to start the process, and have the
>> confirmation be transmitted in return online when possible, falling back
>> to Bluetooth only when needed.
>
>Not gonna happen.
>
>Current systems as setup in Canada by CIC/Rogers and the coming Interac
>ones do not use the internet connection at all for the transaction. Not
>only insecure, but also involves the wireless carrier in the transaction
>(which means banks have to share transaction costs with the carrier).

It's not insecure unless it's designed incorrectly. Now admittedly
Apple's approach to security isn't consistently good, but there's no
reason that this would need to be difficult.

A very simple implementation would take a request from the merchant with
the following details:

Merchant information:
Merchant ID Number (already public, no privacy risks)
Acquiring Bank ID (already public, no privacy risks)
Date and Time (already public, no privacy risks, prevents replay
attacks)

Transaction information:
Transaction ID (GUID or similar, generated randomly per-transaction, no
transaction details, therefore no privacy risk)
Amount
Type (preauth, purchase, refund, etc)
Currency Code

The device would receive the above information in a QR code, the user
would approve it, and the device would then sign this information and
transmit only the merchant information, customer identifier, transaction
ID and digital signature to the processor. With creativity this could
fit into 1 SMS.

The processor would then confirm that the account is authorized, has
funds available, etc, and would transmit the confirmation to the
merchant over traditional channels.

Because this is a pure software solution, it can be easily upgraded,
both for security and for convenience. For example, you might want to
add a tip entry into the device's UI, or the ability for the merchant to
specify multiple prices or a range from which the customer can choose
(for example, at a gas bump, where you might be allowed to preauth
anywhere from $5 to $150 per transaction), or you might add cash-back
options to appropriate transactions.

There's also no reason to share anything with the carrier, wrap the
whole thing in a HTTPS tunnel through Apple's existing networks when
connecting wirelessly, or connections directly to the merchant terminal
requiring an Apple signed SSL certificate for the handshake.

Although your personal ID (roughly equivalent to a credit card number)
would be transmitted, the ID itself would be meaningless without the
digital signature, and therefore not a security risk.

Since the device's communication with the processor is very minimal, it
could be done over SMS, cellular data, Bluetooth*, Wifi*, by having the
merchant scan the screen, or even high frequency audio.

*Bluetooth: Merchants would use a dedicated Bluetooth UI that would
accept connections from devices and only allow communication with
merchant providers, so there would be no separate pairing process
visible to the user, and the scanned QR code would indicate the
availability of Bluetooth, would include the BT device identifier and
PIN.

*Wifi could be handled the same way, using the store's own wifi for
non-cellular connected devices, but this could also be done using the
store's public wifi if the device is already connected to such.

Since it's all done in software, the device could contain multiple IDs
and signing certificates, they could be rotated automatically based on
privacy (so not even a merchant could identify repeat purchases from a
single account) and security needs (all encryption keys should be
rotated, the speed at which this is done is based on cypher strength)

This scheme would require that the merchant be online at all times or
willing to cache transactions for later processing (which is how things
currently work anyway). For businesses willing to rely on customer data
plans or SMS, it wouldn't need any additional hardware (assuming their
POS is actually computer driven, with a printer that can print a
bitmapped QR image -- Any business that can put a logo on their receipt
has the right printer already), but for businesses willing to invest in
a Bluetooth adapter or wifi, it would immediately scale to iPod Touches
and non-data-connected devices.

Heck, even most Java-capable dumb phones could get in on the action, if
the phone has enough CPU power to process a QR code in the Java VM and
Java apps can access the camera in real time (a whole lot of big IFs
here)

If you were to partner with a few large names (something Apple has the
power to do) along with an up-and-coming payment processor like Square
(to bring a massive number of small vendors online overnight), you might
make something that would work.

Best of all, since QR codes can be printed, they could be on the bottom
of receipts at restaurants allowing you to pay from the table without
waiting for the waitress to wander by with a terminal (And without your
card leaving your hand, for countries that still use magnetic stripes)

>By using NFC, the transaction is between the phone and the paypass
>terminal without involving the wireless carrier at all. It uses the same
>network as with normal credit card, nothing special done by banks for it.

That's how it's done now, yes. I'm suggesting inventing something new,
not building on the current NFC system.

>(the wireless carrier is involved in the provisioning of the encrypted
>blob of credit card to storage on SIM card, but not in the actial
>transactions).

And the fact that wireless carriers are involved at all is a potential
problem, when/if NFC takes off. Imagine wireless carriers start wanting
a piece of the transactions or they refuse to provision SIMs?

>If Aple wants to be different, it will become its own bank and use its
>existing relationship with millions of customers so tat when you use
>your iPhoe to make NFC purchases, it gets biled to your Apple account.

I could definitely see Apple going that route. But I could also see them
wanting a larger deployed base than only the latest and greatest model.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.04.30 03:02 , DevilsPGD wrote:
> In the last episode of <Y8GdnX3uZ7ztn-LM...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>
>> On 2013.04.29 18:05 , DevilsPGD wrote:
>>> In the last episode of
>>> <517dd98d$0$43926$c3e8da3$9dec...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
>>> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> said:
>>>
>>>> For instance, if at WWDC, Apple were to announce a new payment API
>>>> and/or data transfer API between 2 iPhones, it would be tantamount to
>>>> confirming the next iphone will have an NFC chip.
>>>
>>> It would? Couldn't Bluetooth accomplish the same thing?
>>
>> Data XFR yes. And that could support payments. (You still need a
>> payment processor unless people send Bitcoins to one another - which is
>> already supported with apps like Blockchain).
>>
>> Payment by NFC would of course need the NFC component(s).
>
> True, if you limited yourself to NFC. Payment processing could be done
> more easily for data-connected devices by having the device scan a QR
> Barcode to retrieve the data required to start the process, and have the
> confirmation be transmitted in return online when possible, falling back
> to Bluetooth only when needed.

Bitcoin is used this way. Scan the merchant's bitcoin wallet address.
Enter the purchase amount. Done. (Entering the purchase amount is
still manual but I'd bet merchants could also print barcodes for prices
to automate that as well). Show the merchant the transaction as it goes.

> The cool part is that this would scale to online transactions too,
> offering two-factor authorization by having me scan the screen as part
> of the check-out process.
>
> With a bit more effort (and likely too high a user-training barrier) you
> could have the iPhone scan the code, the user approve the transaction
> and transmit a signed transaction by displaying a barcode and having the
> store scan it, similar to what is done with airline tickets. However,
> this would require hardware deployment so it would be a much bigger
> implementation challenge.

See above. Variations, etc.

> Either way you obviously need payment processors, but Apple has enough
> clout to start down this road.

The advantage of Bitcoin is you do not need payment processors (other
than the bit miners already in operation and growing). Wallets usually
"scrape" a few milli-bitcoins for the miner.

> (I don't see it happening -- But if anyone could do it, Apple could do
> it without NFC and without any other hardware changes -- If Apple wants
> to get into this market, deploying it to every device 3GS and up all at
> once would probably bring more devices online overnight than every
> NFC-activated device ever sold)

So could bitcoin. Already deployed. Just not understood by enough
merchants yet.

[Fred Moore]

In article <FKCdndU7KtdBgODM...@giganews.com>,

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Various Mac following news sites indicate that iOS 7 will be announced
> at the next WWDC in June. Some of the sites expect it to not only sport
> a major Ive do-over but anticipate a new "killer" app as well.
>
> Will skeumorphism finally be put to rest? (Please!).

Apple's iOS 7 said to be visually different, flat
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57581971-37/apples-ios-7-said-to-be-vi
sually-different-flat/>

I don't necessarily see this as an improvement. Too much texture (in a
few places) to none? No happy medium?

--
The George W. Bush Institute: A faith-base belief tank where every day a
hot slurry of gut feelings is carefully processed then poured into
cooling trays and set out to harden into rigid ideology.
--Doonesburry, 2013.5.1

[Jolly Roger]

In article <fmoore-629E1C....@mx05.eternal-september.org>,

Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:

> In article <FKCdndU7KtdBgODM...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> > Various Mac following news sites indicate that iOS 7 will be announced
> > at the next WWDC in June. Some of the sites expect it to not only sport
> > a major Ive do-over but anticipate a new "killer" app as well.
> >
> > Will skeumorphism finally be put to rest? (Please!).
>
> Apple's iOS 7 said to be visually different, flat
> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57581971-37/apples-ios-7-said-to-be-vi
> sually-different-flat/>
>
> I don't necessarily see this as an improvement. Too much texture (in a
> few places) to none? No happy medium?

Yes, because clearly this implies there will be no happy medium.

Seriously?

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[Jolly Roger]

In article <michelle-0F3CD1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-83C35...@news.individual.net>,

> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, because clearly this implies there will be no happy medium.
>

> Sure there will; you just need to pay her well enough.

Nah, I have much more refined methods than that. : )

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-02 02:33, Lewis wrote:

> I have a great deal of respect for Ive and his design ethos. I am
> confident any changes to the look of iOS 7 will be well-thought-out and
> functional while still being attractive.


My first response is that I think this way. But after thinking about it,
I am not sure whether this is confidence in Ive or wishful thinking.

Do you really know that Ive's software GUI personal preferences are
compatible with yours ? Or are you just hoping they are ?

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <slrnko69fo....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

>In message <51829d48$0$46946$c3e8da3$9b4f...@news.astraweb.com>

>I know that he has designed the iMac, the Cube, the iMac G4, the iMac G5, the
>iPhone, the aluminum Mac Book Pro, the Mac mini, and the iPad.
>
><https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44770560/ive.jpg>

So his record is hit and miss, but there is hope?

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-02 22:47, Lewis wrote:

> I know that he has designed the iMac, the Cube, the iMac G4, the iMac G5, the
> iPhone, the aluminum Mac Book Pro, the Mac mini, and the iPad.

And how do you kno that Ive's talent will result in down to earth GUI
designs instead of exentric very cool looks designed to impress during
keynote, but which makes everyday life harder ?

Look at iTunes, the only product revamped shortly after he took over.
People had to "fight" the software defaults to re-instate previous
behaviour that works for most people.

Yes I would really hope that Ive will remove shenenigans (such as
translucent panels in OS-X which accomplish nothing except make text
less readable). But only time will tell whether his hardware style will
transate into fewer gimmicks in software user interface or not.

[nospam]

In article <slrnko6q4d....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> The Cube was a very well designed machine.

no it definitely was not. it had numerous problems.

the price of the cube was much too high, it had a half-size pci slot
which had to be used for video (but almost nobody made cards that fit),
it had a nonstandard video connector which included usb and power which
limited the choice of displays, it had only two usb 1.1 ports, one of
which was needed for its speakers (they didn't work through a hub), the
case cracked and it also had a flat top where users invariably put
things on top of it, causing ventilation problems.

it was basically a headless imac that cost twice as much as the imac
did and didn't include a display. it even cost more than a g4 tower.
however, it looked nice.

after killing it, apple came out with the mac mini, a much better
designed product, other than being insanely difficult to open it for no
good reason.

> Its problems were it was too
> much and too little ($ and power). It is still popular for its looks.
> There's a reason MOMA had a Mac cube and its distinctive Harmond Kardon
> iSub speaker (also designed by Ive) n display.

only because it looks pretty, not because it was a good computer.

people buy computers to use and do work, not because they want to look
at it.

[Lloyd]

In article <030520131312476584%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <slrnko6q4d....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> > The Cube was a very well designed machine.
>
> no it definitely was not. it had numerous problems.
>
> the price of the cube was much too high, it had a half-size pci slot
> which had to be used for video (but almost nobody made cards that fit),
> it had a nonstandard video connector which included usb and power which
> limited the choice of displays, it had only two usb 1.1 ports, one of
> which was needed for its speakers (they didn't work through a hub), the
> case cracked and it also had a flat top where users invariably put
> things on top of it, causing ventilation problems.
>

?? non-standard video connector??

I'm almost positive that my VGA monitor plugged right into my cube just
fine.

And to blame a computer for a user's idiocy in putting things in the way
of heat flow is a bit of a stretch to call that a 'fault'

The Cube was a slick box and in the latter part of its life, the price
came down significantly.

One very nice thing I found out about it was when I sold it. Recovered
a bigger % of the initial cost than any other Mac I've sold has done.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-03 03:39, Lewis wrote:

> OMG! Something changed! How do I get it back! I HATE CHANGE!

OMG, Apple failed to realise how people used iTunes and changed the
default to one which is not intuitive to users.

OMG, in order to make a really realy cute iMac, they put the SD card
slot in an inaccessible place.

For as much as I respect Mr Ive, I think it is premature to know whether
it will be form over function, or whether function will come first when
he starts to steer GUI designs.

[nospam]

In article
<lloydparsons-5AEA...@news.eternal-september.org>, Lloyd

<lloydp...@me.com> wrote:

> > > The Cube was a very well designed machine.
> >
> > no it definitely was not. it had numerous problems.
> >
> > the price of the cube was much too high, it had a half-size pci slot
> > which had to be used for video (but almost nobody made cards that fit),
> > it had a nonstandard video connector which included usb and power which
> > limited the choice of displays, it had only two usb 1.1 ports, one of
> > which was needed for its speakers (they didn't work through a hub), the
> > case cracked and it also had a flat top where users invariably put
> > things on top of it, causing ventilation problems.
> >
> ?? non-standard video connector??

the cube introduced the apple display connector, a proprietary dvi
connector that also carried usb and power and was incompatible with the
rest of the world.

> I'm almost positive that my VGA monitor plugged right into my cube just
> fine.

there was also a vga plug, but the apple displays didn't use it. they
used adc. you could use vga, but it was of lower quality. if you wanted
to use a standard dvi display, you needed an adapter.

> And to blame a computer for a user's idiocy in putting things in the way
> of heat flow is a bit of a stretch to call that a 'fault'

it's a design flaw, although minor.

> The Cube was a slick box and in the latter part of its life, the price
> came down significantly.

it was not a slick box. it only looked pretty.

the price only came down because it was overpriced and very few people
bought it. it cost twice as much as an imac and still needed a display.
it's no surprise the price dropped.

> One very nice thing I found out about it was when I sold it. Recovered
> a bigger % of the initial cost than any other Mac I've sold has done.

only because of its looks, not because it was any good.

[Lloyd]

In article <030520131427506796%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <lloydparsons-5AEA...@news.eternal-september.org>, Lloyd
> <lloydp...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The Cube was a very well designed machine.
> > >
> > > no it definitely was not. it had numerous problems.
> > >
> > > the price of the cube was much too high, it had a half-size pci slot
> > > which had to be used for video (but almost nobody made cards that fit),
> > > it had a nonstandard video connector which included usb and power which
> > > limited the choice of displays, it had only two usb 1.1 ports, one of
> > > which was needed for its speakers (they didn't work through a hub), the
> > > case cracked and it also had a flat top where users invariably put
> > > things on top of it, causing ventilation problems.
> > >
> > ?? non-standard video connector??
>
> the cube introduced the apple display connector, a proprietary dvi
> connector that also carried usb and power and was incompatible with the
> rest of the world.
>
> > I'm almost positive that my VGA monitor plugged right into my cube just
> > fine.
>
> there was also a vga plug, but the apple displays didn't use it. they
> used adc. you could use vga, but it was of lower quality. if you wanted
> to use a standard dvi display, you needed an adapter.
>

So it had an Apple proprietary connector and a VGA connector. Pretty
much sounds like they covered all the bases. So not a fault at all.

> > And to blame a computer for a user's idiocy in putting things in the way
> > of heat flow is a bit of a stretch to call that a 'fault'
>
> it's a design flaw, although minor.
>

No it wasn't. It was designed to use natural airflow and the upflow it
produced to throw the heat off. People that bought them knew that, or
if they didn't it was because they chose not to learn about it.

> > The Cube was a slick box and in the latter part of its life, the price
> > came down significantly.
>
> it was not a slick box. it only looked pretty.
>

Whatever. A very slick box.

> the price only came down because it was overpriced and very few people
> bought it. it cost twice as much as an imac and still needed a display.
> it's no surprise the price dropped.
>

Yep. The only big fault of it was the original pricing. It was
over-engineered and that came at a cost that it couldn't support in
sales.

That's a marketing/engineering fault.

> > One very nice thing I found out about it was when I sold it. Recovered
> > a bigger % of the initial cost than any other Mac I've sold has done.
>
> only because of its looks, not because it was any good.

Whatever. I don't actually care why only that it was. Why didn't put
any money in my pocket.

[nospam]

In article
<lloydparsons-C71A...@news.eternal-september.org>, Lloyd

<lloydp...@me.com> wrote:

> > > > > The Cube was a very well designed machine.
> > > >
> > > > no it definitely was not. it had numerous problems.
> > > >
> > > > the price of the cube was much too high, it had a half-size pci slot
> > > > which had to be used for video (but almost nobody made cards that fit),
> > > > it had a nonstandard video connector which included usb and power which
> > > > limited the choice of displays, it had only two usb 1.1 ports, one of
> > > > which was needed for its speakers (they didn't work through a hub), the
> > > > case cracked and it also had a flat top where users invariably put
> > > > things on top of it, causing ventilation problems.
> > > >
> > > ?? non-standard video connector??
> >
> > the cube introduced the apple display connector, a proprietary dvi
> > connector that also carried usb and power and was incompatible with the
> > rest of the world.
> >
> > > I'm almost positive that my VGA monitor plugged right into my cube just
> > > fine.
> >
> > there was also a vga plug, but the apple displays didn't use it. they
> > used adc. you could use vga, but it was of lower quality. if you wanted
> > to use a standard dvi display, you needed an adapter.
>
> So it had an Apple proprietary connector and a VGA connector. Pretty
> much sounds like they covered all the bases. So not a fault at all.

adc was a new connector that was not necessary. it was incompatible
with existing dvi displays and dvi video cards.

anyone who wanted to use a standard dvi display with a mac had to buy
an adapter, and anyone who wanted to use an apple adc display with a
standard dvi video card required yet a different adapter.

adc was a mistake, and apple ultimately realized that and changed to
standard dvi.

ten years earlier on early powermacs, apple made the same mistake with
the the av connector. they later switched to vga but didn't learn their
lesson and tried again with adc, which not surprisingly, also failed.

> > > And to blame a computer for a user's idiocy in putting things in the way
> > > of heat flow is a bit of a stretch to call that a 'fault'
> >
> > it's a design flaw, although minor.
> >
> No it wasn't. It was designed to use natural airflow and the upflow it
> produced to throw the heat off. People that bought them knew that, or
> if they didn't it was because they chose not to learn about it.

it was a design flaw. when you make something flat on top, users will
put things on that flat top. it's human nature.

they could have added some ridges (still keeping the cube shape) so
that stuff put on top would not obscure the vents. or they could have
angled it slightly so anything put on top would fall. or they could
have put the vents on the side just below the top, so that anything on
top would not obscure airflow.

they didn't.

> > > The Cube was a slick box and in the latter part of its life, the price
> > > came down significantly.
> >
> > it was not a slick box. it only looked pretty.
> >
> Whatever. A very slick box.

not slick enough.

even at its reduced price, it didn't sell well and was later killed off
entirely.

> > the price only came down because it was overpriced and very few people
> > bought it. it cost twice as much as an imac and still needed a display.
> > it's no surprise the price dropped.
> >
> Yep. The only big fault of it was the original pricing. It was
> over-engineered and that came at a cost that it couldn't support in
> sales.
>
> That's a marketing/engineering fault.

the price was indeed a flaw, but one of many.

[JF Mezei]

re: Cube connectors.

Is this something that Ive's department would be in charge of ?
(deciding to create a new connector) ? Or would he get orders from the
top to design a new connector that is proprietary and has more bells and
whistles etc ?

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.03 13:57 , Lloyd wrote:

> And to blame a computer for a user's idiocy in putting things in the way
> of heat flow is a bit of a stretch to call that a 'fault'

Part of design is to imagine how something will actually be used. Making
something vulnerable to a coffee spill or CD case blocking a vent is
inviting trouble.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.03 01:35 , JF Mezei wrote:

> Look at iTunes, the only product revamped shortly after he took over.
> People had to "fight" the software defaults to re-instate previous
> behaviour that works for most people.

iTunes is a patched together mess that should be completely scrapped and
replaced with a fresh design.

The name isn't even right.

-music
-video
-apps
-purchasing/rental
-backup services
-iOS screen configuration manager

IMO, there should be one app for playing media and a separate app for
purchasing/backup/config. They can have 'buttons' in each app to
activate the counterpart when needed.

A background media server would be nice for sharing w/o having to have
the app up at all. (eg: I'm downstairs and want to play a video on my
Apple TV. I shouldn't have to trudge upstairs to turn on iTunes).

[Lloyd]

In article <QJWdneVI2JZghBnM...@giganews.com>,

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2013.05.03 13:57 , Lloyd wrote:
>
> > And to blame a computer for a user's idiocy in putting things in the way
> > of heat flow is a bit of a stretch to call that a 'fault'
>
> Part of design is to imagine how something will actually be used. Making
> something vulnerable to a coffee spill or CD case blocking a vent is
> inviting trouble.

Have you ever actually seen the Cube? It was so obvious in its design
that things shouldn't be on top of it, you'd have to take a college
course in stupidity to think it was OK.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.03 14:45 , Lloyd wrote:

> No it wasn't. It was designed to use natural airflow and the upflow it
> produced to throw the heat off. People that bought them knew that, or
> if they didn't it was because they chose not to learn about it.

If the computer were normally inaccessible to the user, it would be a
fine idea. But this "jewel" of a computer was meant to be within reach
of someone with a DVD so it could easily have something put (a DVD case)
on top or worse, a coffee dropped in. The later would have a cooling
effect, I suppose - at least temporarily.

[Alan Browne]

Having seen the amazingly stupid things smart people do to all manner of
appliances I wouldn't be surprised that they took it.

And of course you don't take stupid 101 to spill a coffee. That's
clumsy 203.

[nospam]

In article <QJWdneRI2JbFhxnM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> > Look at iTunes, the only product revamped shortly after he took over.
> > People had to "fight" the software defaults to re-instate previous
> > behaviour that works for most people.
>
> iTunes is a patched together mess that should be completely scrapped and
> replaced with a fresh design.

yes it should, but that's not going to happen.

> The name isn't even right.

it was initially.

they just kept adding and adding to it. and then adding some more.

> -music
> -video
> -apps
> -purchasing/rental
> -backup services
> -iOS screen configuration manager

you forgot:

e-books
podcasts
itunes u
ringtones
photos
bookmarks
contacts
calendar
notes

> IMO, there should be one app for playing media and a separate app for
> purchasing/backup/config. They can have 'buttons' in each app to
> activate the counterpart when needed.

having separate apps has its downsides too.

for instance, if you're in the player app and decide you want a certain
song or album on your iphone, you would have to switch to a different
app to sync it.

> A background media server would be nice for sharing w/o having to have
> the app up at all. (eg: I'm downstairs and want to play a video on my
> Apple TV. I shouldn't have to trudge upstairs to turn on iTunes).

remotely connect to the mac and launch it, but having a dedicated
server app would be useful.

[nospam]

In article
<lloydparsons-7AA8...@news.eternal-september.org>, Lloyd

<lloydp...@me.com> wrote:

> > > And to blame a computer for a user's idiocy in putting things in the way
> > > of heat flow is a bit of a stretch to call that a 'fault'
> >
> > Part of design is to imagine how something will actually be used. Making
> > something vulnerable to a coffee spill or CD case blocking a vent is
> > inviting trouble.
>
> Have you ever actually seen the Cube? It was so obvious in its design
> that things shouldn't be on top of it, you'd have to take a college
> course in stupidity to think it was OK.

not obvious enough, because people did it, and not infrequently either.

apple even had a tech note article telling people not to do it:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/TA44017?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>

people put stuff on top of the mac pro and g5 towers but there weren't
vents on top so it didn't matter.

[nospam]

In article <QJWdnedI2JY2hxnM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> > No it wasn't. It was designed to use natural airflow and the upflow it
> > produced to throw the heat off. People that bought them knew that, or
> > if they didn't it was because they chose not to learn about it.
>
> If the computer were normally inaccessible to the user, it would be a
> fine idea. But this "jewel" of a computer was meant to be within reach
> of someone with a DVD so it could easily have something put (a DVD case)
> on top or worse, a coffee dropped in. The later would have a cooling
> effect, I suppose - at least temporarily.

hot coffee does not have a significant cooling effect.

[Lloyd]

In article <030520131707392141%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

And if someone put hot coffee on top of a Cube I would have no sympathy
whatsoever if they damaged it.

[Lloyd]

In article <030520131707392085%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <lloydparsons-7AA8...@news.eternal-september.org>, Lloyd
> <lloydp...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > > > And to blame a computer for a user's idiocy in putting things in the way
> > > > of heat flow is a bit of a stretch to call that a 'fault'
> > >
> > > Part of design is to imagine how something will actually be used. Making
> > > something vulnerable to a coffee spill or CD case blocking a vent is
> > > inviting trouble.
> >
> > Have you ever actually seen the Cube? It was so obvious in its design
> > that things shouldn't be on top of it, you'd have to take a college
> > course in stupidity to think it was OK.
>
> not obvious enough, because people did it, and not infrequently either.
>

Sometimes stupid can't be taught a thing.

[Alan Browne]

Not all coffee is hot when spilled.

But even if it is, it will heat things up that aren't as hot, but as it
cools and evaporates it will carry away heat from the computer.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.03 17:49 , Lloyd wrote:
> In article <030520131707392085%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> not obvious enough, because people did it, and not infrequently either.
>>
> Sometimes stupid can't be taught a thing.

Get over it. It was a bad design. The goal was good (fanless), but the
implementation (to get sufficient convection) was not appropriate to
something sitting on a desk. I would hazard a guess that venting to the
sides near the top seriously reduced the convection volume making the
unit too hot so they went with the hole in the top.

The upward facing CD/DVD slot, if to a lesser degree, was pretty bad too
as every insertion could drag dust accumulated in the slot area inside
the reader.

Really. A. Bad. Design. For. A. Desktop.

[Steve Hix]

In article <030520131707392085%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <lloydparsons-7AA8...@news.eternal-september.org>, Lloyd
> <lloydp...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > > > And to blame a computer for a user's idiocy in putting things in the way
> > > > of heat flow is a bit of a stretch to call that a 'fault'
> > >
> > > Part of design is to imagine how something will actually be used. Making
> > > something vulnerable to a coffee spill or CD case blocking a vent is
> > > inviting trouble.
> >
> > Have you ever actually seen the Cube? It was so obvious in its design
> > that things shouldn't be on top of it, you'd have to take a college
> > course in stupidity to think it was OK.
>
> not obvious enough, because people did it, and not infrequently either.

Some of the same people who apparently thought the CD drawer was a cup holder.

> apple even had a tech note article telling people not to do it:
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/TA44017?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>

If I had a dollar for every single tech note I've had to write over the past 30
years telling people to not do something obviously stupid, I'd be driving
something better than the old Ford Ranger I've got now.

Well, maybe not, I'd probably spend it on camera gear.

[Steve Hix]

In article <030520131707392141%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Depends on just how hot the surface it was spilled on happened to be.

[nospam]

In article <sehix-C5FA71....@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Steve Hix

<se...@NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote:

> > > > > And to blame a computer for a user's idiocy in putting things in the
> > > > > way of heat flow is a bit of a stretch to call that a 'fault'
> > > >
> > > > Part of design is to imagine how something will actually be used. Making
> > > > something vulnerable to a coffee spill or CD case blocking a vent is
> > > > inviting trouble.
> > >
> > > Have you ever actually seen the Cube? It was so obvious in its design
> > > that things shouldn't be on top of it, you'd have to take a college
> > > course in stupidity to think it was OK.
> >
> > not obvious enough, because people did it, and not infrequently either.
>
> Some of the same people who apparently thought the CD drawer was a cup holder.

i don't think there's a huge overlap with those two groups.

> > apple even had a tech note article telling people not to do it:
> > <http://support.apple.com/kb/TA44017?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>
>
> If I had a dollar for every single tech note I've had to write over the past
> 30 years telling people to not do something obviously stupid, I'd be driving
> something better than the old Ford Ranger I've got now.

that's because a lot of people do stupid things.

the original ipod shuffle, the one that looked like a stick of gum,
came with a warning, 'do not eat ipod shuffle', and for those in the
united kingdom, it said 'do not chew ipod shuffle'.

apparently it's ok to eat an ipod shuffle in the uk, you just cannot
chew it. it can only be swallowed whole.

<http://www.engadget.com/2005/01/12/the-ipod-shuffle-do-not-eat-in-the-u
s-or-chew-in-the-uk/>

<http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/3486252161648138.JPG?0.79879597
34451098>

> Well, maybe not, I'd probably spend it on camera gear.

that's a money sinkhole if ever there ever was one.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of
<51834cbe$0$5796$c3e8da3$5077...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> said:

>On 13-05-02 22:47, Lewis wrote:
>
>> I know that he has designed the iMac, the Cube, the iMac G4, the iMac G5, the
>> iPhone, the aluminum Mac Book Pro, the Mac mini, and the iPad.
>
>And how do you kno that Ive's talent will result in down to earth GUI
>designs instead of exentric very cool looks designed to impress during
>keynote, but which makes everyday life harder ?

>
>Look at iTunes, the only product revamped shortly after he took over.
>People had to "fight" the software defaults to re-instate previous
>behaviour that works for most people.

It's not even about the old defaults, some very basic features are
mostly inaccessible by default.

Once you get the needed controls back, it's almost a step forward. It
still displays disjointed error messages somewhat randomly, but it's
less sluggish, which is worth it.

--
The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own.

[Steve Hix]

In article <030520132044081443%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <sehix-C5FA71....@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Steve Hix
> <se...@NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote:
>
> > > > > > And to blame a computer for a user's idiocy in putting things in
> > > > > > the way of heat flow is a bit of a stretch to call that a 'fault'
> > > > >
> > > > > Part of design is to imagine how something will actually be used.
> > > > > Making something vulnerable to a coffee spill or CD case blocking a vent is
> > > > > inviting trouble.
> > > >
> > > > Have you ever actually seen the Cube? It was so obvious in its design
> > > > that things shouldn't be on top of it, you'd have to take a college
> > > > course in stupidity to think it was OK.
> > >
> > > not obvious enough, because people did it, and not infrequently either.
> >
> > Some of the same people who apparently thought the CD drawer was a cup
> > holder.
>
> i don't think there's a huge overlap with those two groups.

You do realize that that says something very bad about humanity, right?

> > > apple even had a tech note article telling people not to do it:
> > > <http://support.apple.com/kb/TA44017?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>
> >
> > If I had a dollar for every single tech note I've had to write over the
> > past 30 years telling people to not do something obviously stupid, I'd be
> > driving something better than the old Ford Ranger I've got now.
>
> that's because a lot of people do stupid things.

Frankly, they should have to live with the consequences of doing dumb stuff.

But we have lawyers to feed in these parts...

> > Well, maybe not, I'd probably spend it on camera gear.
>
> that's a money sinkhole if ever there ever was one.

You're telling me. I figured it out about six months into getting serious about
photography (and flying, for that matter).

And 45+ years later, I'm still doing it.

At least it's not very fattening.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-03 18:08, Alan Browne wrote:

> The upward facing CD/DVD slot, if to a lesser degree, was pretty bad too
> as every insertion could drag dust accumulated in the slot area inside
> the reader.

Are you sure you had your cube in the proper orientation ? Perhaps it
was meant to be rotated 90� frm what you thought ? :-)

What they realy should have done is to make a mac look like those flying
toasters (remember them ?) with the CD slot on top that would pop the
toast when ready. (and with the obligatory notice not to insert a knife
or other utensils in the slot or put the toaster in the dishwasher)

[Lloyd]

In article <030520132044081443%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

About 2nd to a boat! You know the hole in the water you throw money
at!! :)

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-03 17:40, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> SCSI was incompatible with the vast majority
> of third-party drives.

Actually, it was not. I was siply th Apple supplied drivers who refuse
to mount drives not specified in the driver software.

There were some patches one could make to change an Apple drive ID with
one from a 3rd party vendor that would make the Mac mount the drive, and
there were 3r party drivers that mounted any scsi drives (FWB tookkit
comes to mind)

But the SCSI hardware was compatible.

[nospam]

In article <michelle-2343B4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> > the price of the cube was much too high,
>
> That has nothing to do with whether it was well designed.

yes it does.

part of a good design is how much it will cost and whether people will
actually buy it at that price.

[nospam]

In article <michelle-604644...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> > adc was a new connector that was not necessary. it was incompatible
> > with existing dvi displays and dvi video cards.
>
> The original Mac had a connector that was incompatible with existing
> keyboards.

what existing keyboards? back then, computers came with keyboards, as
did crt monitors (e.g., vt100).

there wasn't really a market for new keyboards.

> The ADB connector was incompatible with anything out there,
> other than Apple's products.

adb had a very significant advantage over existing methods in that it
was a bus which could support multiple devices, including multiple
keyboards and mice as well other devices too.

one company even made a modem that connected via adb (global village).

usb took that concept and made it even better.

also, plenty of third parties made adb peripherals and next used adb on
their 040 hardware.

> SCSI was incompatible with the vast majority
> of third-party drives.

no it wasn't.

apple's installer was picky but the drives themselves were compatible.
the only issue was the 25 pin plug on the mac instead of a centronics
connector.

that is very different than an adc-dvi adapter, which was much more
than just a different plug. it combined dvi, power and usb into one
cable, and depending on which direction you're going, an adapter could
be very costly.

> LocalTalk was incompatible with existing network
> hardware. Etc.

back then, network hardware was thick or thin ethernet. localtalk was
significantly cheaper and easier to install and maintain, and phonenet
even more so. that was a very clear advantage that justified being
different.

adc does not have any advantages over dvi, other than using 1 cable
instead of 3, and that's very minor. otherwise, adc is non-standard,
more expensive and required adapters to connect with third party
displays and video cards. that's why it was abandoned.

> "This is the way it has always been done," is not a valid excuse.

nobody is saying it is.

[nospam]

In article <michelle-BE12B4...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > SCSI was incompatible with the vast majority
> > > of third-party drives.
> >
> > Actually, it was not. I was siply th Apple supplied drivers who refuse
> > to mount drives not specified in the driver software.
>

> When Apple incorporated SCSI into the Mac Plus, just about all external
> hard drives other than Apple's had serial or parallel interfaces; it was
> not a matter of drivers. They were physically incompatible.

nope.

all apple did was use a db25 connector instead of a centronics style
connector. it's trivial to make a cable with a db25 plug.

that's *very* different than what they did with adc, which took dvi and
added usb and power into a new connector, and one which was
non-standard (db25 was very standard). worse, adapters for adc were not
cheap.

> Maybe you're too new to Macintosh to remember those days.

i'm not. i used a bunch of non-apple scsi peripherals on a mac plus,
mac ii and assorted other vintage hardware.

[nospam]

In article <51848389$0$28653$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > SCSI was incompatible with the vast majority
> > of third-party drives.
>
> Actually, it was not. I was siply th Apple supplied drivers who refuse
> to mount drives not specified in the driver software.

no it wasn't that either.

apple's disk formatter didn't recognize third party drives, so there
was no way to format them, at least with apple's software.

because of this, third party drive companies wrote their own formatting
software (which generally wasn't that good and that's being kind) or
they bundled formatting software from companies that knew what they
were doing, such as from fwb.

> There were some patches one could make to change an Apple drive ID with
> one from a 3rd party vendor that would make the Mac mount the drive, and
> there were 3r party drivers that mounted any scsi drives (FWB tookkit
> comes to mind)

patching the driver let you use apple's software but that was risky.

also, the third party formatting utilities generally offered additional
features over apple's, such as custom icons, setting a drive to not
auto-mount, etc.

> But the SCSI hardware was compatible.

it was.

[nospam]

In article <sehix-015EDD....@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Steve Hix

<se...@NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote:

> > > Well, maybe not, I'd probably spend it on camera gear.
> >
> > that's a money sinkhole if ever there ever was one.
>
> You're telling me. I figured it out about six months into getting serious
> about photography (and flying, for that matter).

flying is even worse.

one major problem with camera gear is what's known as lbs, or lens
buying syndrome, where you have to buy various exotic and very
expensive lenses (and lust after even more), even though it's unlikely
you'll be able to see a difference in the photos.

> And 45+ years later, I'm still doing it.

that's late 1960s. if you have any old nikon or pentax lenses from back
then, they can still be used (although some caveats with nikon).

> At least it's not very fattening.

true. it could even help you stay slim, with all the exercise you get
hiking up a mountain lugging the cameras and lenses, all to get a
beautiful scenic photo.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-03 23:54, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> When Apple incorporated SCSI into the Mac Plus, just about all external
> hard drives other than Apple's had serial or parallel interfaces; it was
> not a matter of drivers. They were physically incompatible.
>

> Maybe you're too new to Macintosh to remember those days.

SCSI Rodime 20 meg drive onto my MacPlus. Along with diskette for the
driver to enable that non Apple drive.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-04 01:21, nospam wrote:

> true. it could even help you stay slim, with all the exercise you get
> hiking up a mountain lugging the cameras and lenses, all to get a
> beautiful scenic photo.

While cycling, there are often times where I wish I had my big bulky
Nikon with me (funny how they got bigger when they went digital, you'd
think the bodies would have gotten smaller and lighter).

The iPhone is fine to take a picture of a scene to say I was there. But
a good camera/lens can take a photograph of what you want to record.

The lack of a mechanical zoom on the iPhone (understandable due to
thickness of unit) is a drawback to picture taking no matter how
sophisticated the software is.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-04 01:21, nospam wrote:

> part of a good design is how much it will cost and whether people will
> actually buy it at that price.

For a low volume item such as that cube thing, one can easily argue that
the profit margins are high enough that production costs are not that
important with regards to optimizing design to lower assembly costs.

But for an item such as the iPhone, the design is very important because
at those volumes, small variations in production cost do result in a big
variation in profits.

I believe the internal arrangement of the 5 is better than the 4 in
terms of assembly of the unit. So that would have lowered the costs.
Unfortunatly, it appears that the body itself ended up being expensive
to produce in quantity without scratch marks etc.

What I would like to know is whether Apple's mice are made so hard to
disassemble/maintain because of a philosophy to not let customers in or
because glueing the parts makes it cheaper to assemble. (Especially true
of the mighty mouse which needed frequent maintenance)

In terms of the imacs, it would be nice if they made them easier to
open. But I can see how they may end up requiring flue to hold the
screen to the aluminium frame. But I am quite sure Ive could come up
with something if tasked to make the unit easier to maintain/repair.

[nospam]

In article <5184a289$0$12184$c3e8da3$6901...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> While cycling, there are often times where I wish I had my big bulky
> Nikon with me (funny how they got bigger when they went digital, you'd
> think the bodies would have gotten smaller and lighter).

they did get smaller and lighter. you need to compare like with like. a
nikon d4 is big, but so was a nikon f5. a nikon d40 is small, and so
was a nikon fm or fe.

and don't forget all the space that is no longer needed for multiple
rolls of film.

> The iPhone is fine to take a picture of a scene to say I was there. But
> a good camera/lens can take a photograph of what you want to record.

depends what you want to do with the photo. for a lot of things, the
iphone is more than adequate.

> The lack of a mechanical zoom on the iPhone (understandable due to
> thickness of unit) is a drawback to picture taking no matter how
> sophisticated the software is.

that can be an issue but there are add-on lenses that work reasonably
well, especially considering the price.

[George Kerby]

On 5/4/13 12:21 AM, in article 040520130121205815%nos...@nospam.invalid,

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <sehix-015EDD....@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Steve Hix
> <se...@NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> Well, maybe not, I'd probably spend it on camera gear.
>>>
>>> that's a money sinkhole if ever there ever was one.
>>
>> You're telling me. I figured it out about six months into getting serious
>> about photography (and flying, for that matter).
>
> flying is even worse.
>

Why do people ALWAYS have to tell others that they are pilots?

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-04 11:25, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Please read what I wrote, but for comprehension. When the Mac Plus first
> came out, just about all the existing external hard drives had either
> serial or parallel interfaces. SCSI just didn't work with them, regardless
> of the cable.

And when the MacPlus came out, none of the 5 3/4 diskettes worked on it.
You needed to buy "proprietary" 3" "hard" floppy drives.

Apple adopted the emerging SCSI standard, as well as Postscript printing
and 3" diskettes with the Macintosh and those were the right decisions
because they turned out to be industry standards.

The only reason ATA/SATA gained ground later on was because SCSI drives
were adopted by business/enterprise computers so manufacturers priced
SCSI out of the consumer market. (and then SCSI went through
incompatibel phases with different evolving SCSI standards and I think
it has finally gone stable again wth SAS, but still priced out of
consumer market).

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-04 11:32, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Oh wow! Just changing the cable makes SCSI compatible with serial and/or
> parallel interfaces. I didn't know that.

No, what he meant was that with an adaptor, you made the Apple "funky"
SCSI connector into a standard centronics 50pin SCSI connector.

(that funky connector happened to be a 25 pin one made for serial
connections and adopted by IBM PC for parralel connections).

When you look at the back of the MacPlus, there was no room for a 50 pin
connector to be on the motherboard. They would have had to have a
daughtercard on whcih to have that connector.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-04 12:49, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Pricing has more to do with supply and demand than with design.

To a large extent this is true. However, assembly costs are not ignored.
At the end of the day, they have to weight whether a design that is
costlier to assemble or manufacture will generate extra sales or command
a higher sales price.

Consider the iPhone 5. While Ive may have wet dreams about the beveled
shiny edges which probably cost a lot to make, does the average consumer
really put value into them ?

What is nice about Apple is that they do strive to make great looking
products as opposed to Samsung who don't care much for design, but care
only about specs.

But what happens when that great design raises production costs to a
point where Apple must either forego helty profit margins (sacrilege for
Wall Street Casino Analysts) or raise prices and lose market share
(sacrilege for Wall Street Casino Analysts ?)

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-04 14:41, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> There's a strong argument to be made that they became industry standards
> because Apple was an early adopter of them.

In the case of Postscript, I would plead "no contest". Apple made it a
standard because Apple made "desktop publishing" possible.

In the case of SCSI, I think Apple definitly had a strong hand in it
becoming standard, but there were others who also helped push it in the
enterprise space.

Heck, Digital Equpment, "mr proprietary" designed its proprietary DSSI
that looked suspiciously similar to SCSI down to electrical signals but
added capabilities to it (such as multiple hosts on a single bus
something which SCSI gained later, at which point DEC abandonned DSSI
and went SCSI.

One of the aspects about "proprietary" here is that DEC implemented the
protocol in a more "complete" way than what other low end manufacturers
did. VMS disk drivers until the late 1990s wanted to get errors from the
drives. So Digital would insist that SCSI drives be able to report
errors to the OS via the driver, something which low end drives didn't do.

(You can see similar requirements on the Xserve and MacPro where the Mac
expects to see error reporting (I think it is called SMART now).

So some manufacturers like Apple and DEC implemented the standards and
didn't really deviate from them, but required many "should" from the
standards while low end disks barely met all the "must have" in the
standards.

For a company such has Apple which doesn't communicate technical stuff
to end users, it doesn't explain why its drives cost more for instance.
So it has an image of being very expensive.

But when you look at drives for MacPro and Xserve, they are "server"
grade drives with much longer MTBFs than consumer brands, and also
implement greater range of SATA functions (such as SMART etc).