Steve Jobs, the iPad, and cultural sugar water
AES
Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Consider the possibility that, cool as it may be, the iPad is not the
> right device for you and the way you work. It might be possible for
> Apple to modify the device and/or its soft/firmware to satisfy your
> needs but it's not clear that such modification would be viewed as
> beneficial to the target customer base.
I do fully consider these points. First of all, it certainly seems that
the basic software design of the iPad and the other Apple iGadgets makes
them much less useful than they could be for me as a heavily
computer-active academic and professional; and this seems likely to be
the case for a significant number of other similar individuals.
At the same time, I also fully recognize that, in your phrase, the
"target customer base" for these gadgets as they are now designed is not
just large but humongous, and this customer base appears to be in fact
ecstatically happy with these gadgets as they are now designed
But, I also believe that the software built into or delivered with these
gadgets is not designed (that is, is constrained and limited) in the way
it is primarily to make that enormous customer base happy, although it
does indeed accomplish that.
Rather, it is designed first and foremost, to preserve Apple's control
over _how_ these gadgets are used, and as much as possible over what
content flows through them, and thereby to preserve Apple's ability to
make equally large profits from that aspect of their use.
In particular, very large profits will come not only from selling the
iGadgets themselves, but even more from selling much of the _content_
that will be delivered (more explicitly, be _sold_) through them; and so
it becomes a primary goal for Apple to preserve as much long-term
control as possible over this latter aspect, and to try to block in
advance anything that threatens this prospect.
This means in particular that preserving, protecting and enabling DRM
technology in all its variations becomes an absolutely primary concern
in the basic design of these iGadgets. And doing this is not just
important for Apple's own marketing of content; it's also essential for
Apple's commercial relationships to the entertainment industry who will
generate much of the content that Apple, and they, will market through
these gadgets.
So, I believe that's primarily why the software for these iGadgets,
their iOS and file structure,and so on, is designed the way it is -- and
that that this is a sad situation. (Given this fact, it's no accident
that "jailbreak" is a term that's become prominent in the current
computer vocabulary.)
You may recall the story of how Jobs, trying to recruit Sculley to come
to Apple, said something like, "Do you want to change the world -- or do
you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugar water?"
In my view, Jobs has now redirected a large fraction of Apple's
energies, not to trying to continue changing the world with computers,
but to making and selling iGadgets which, while they can with some
difficulty also be sued for other purposes, are designed primarily to
market and deliver musical and cultural sugar water.
Wyandanch
Nice philosophical piece. But from a business standpoint (i.e., the
point of view of the stockholder owners of Apple like you and me),
whatever maximizes the company's long term return on invested capital is
the way to go...
nospam
<siegman-377ADE...@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>, AES
<sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> > Consider the possibility that, cool as it may be, the iPad is not the
> > right device for you and the way you work. It might be possible for
> > Apple to modify the device and/or its soft/firmware to satisfy your
> > needs but it's not clear that such modification would be viewed as
> > beneficial to the target customer base.
>
> I do fully consider these points. First of all, it certainly seems that
> the basic software design of the iPad and the other Apple iGadgets makes
> them much less useful than they could be for me as a heavily
> computer-active academic and professional; and this seems likely to be
> the case for a significant number of other similar individuals.
that must be why sales are so slow. because they're not useful.
oh wait. ipads are selling like crazy, one every two seconds, and
that's before they're available in all countries. other companies are
scrambling to come up with something similar.
> At the same time, I also fully recognize that, in your phrase, the
> "target customer base" for these gadgets as they are now designed is not
> just large but humongous, and this customer base appears to be in fact
> ecstatically happy with these gadgets as they are now designed
that's what matters.
> But, I also believe that the software built into or delivered with these
> gadgets is not designed (that is, is constrained and limited) in the way
> it is primarily to make that enormous customer base happy, although it
> does indeed accomplish that.
of course it's designed to make them happy, and it succeeded, otherwise
it wouldn't be selling as well as it is.
> Rather, it is designed first and foremost, to preserve Apple's control
> over _how_ these gadgets are used, and as much as possible over what
> content flows through them, and thereby to preserve Apple's ability to
> make equally large profits from that aspect of their use.
nonsense. there is *no* requirement that content flow through apple.
where do people come up with this shit?
> In particular, very large profits will come not only from selling the
> iGadgets themselves, but even more from selling much of the _content_
> that will be delivered (more explicitly, be _sold_) through them; and so
> it becomes a primary goal for Apple to preserve as much long-term
> control as possible over this latter aspect, and to try to block in
> advance anything that threatens this prospect.
there is no requirement, so no.
> This means in particular that preserving, protecting and enabling DRM
> technology in all its variations becomes an absolutely primary concern
> in the basic design of these iGadgets. And doing this is not just
> important for Apple's own marketing of content; it's also essential for
> Apple's commercial relationships to the entertainment industry who will
> generate much of the content that Apple, and they, will market through
> these gadgets.
the content producers are the ones who want drm. apple has repeatedly
come down *against* drm.
Richard Maine
> In article <tom_stiller-2420...@news.individual.net>,
> Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Consider the possibility that, cool as it may be, the iPad is not the
> > right device for you and the way you work.
> I do fully consider these points.
...
> But, I also believe that the software built into or delivered with these
> gadgets is not designed (that is, is constrained and limited) in the way
> it is primarily to make that enormous customer base happy, although it
> does indeed accomplish that.
>
> Rather, it is designed first and foremost, to preserve Apple's control
> over _how_ these gadgets are used,...
I don't see much factual support for this rant. Indeed, parts of it seem
explicitly counter to available factual data. For example, as nospam
noted, Apple has a history of pushing *AGAINST* drm, with content
producers pushing the other way. Apple also has a history of making most
of their money selling the hardware - not software or content.
What I think I do detect is poorly supported rationalizations about how
it ought to be a device for him, suggesting that he hasn't fully
internalized the thought that it isn't.
As I noted before, it isn't the right device for me either. But rather
than rant about that, I *DO* actually accept it and have moved on.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
BreadW...@fractious.net
> Rather, it is designed first and foremost, to preserve Apple's control
> over _how_ these gadgets are used, and as much as possible over what
> content flows through them, and thereby to preserve Apple's ability to
> make equally large profits from that aspect of their use.
I think you're mostly wrong here. Apple would be happy to accomodate
folks like you and me. But if doing so makes the devices less good
for their, as you say, humongous general-consumer market, then they'd
have been making a stupid choice. They need to please the humongous
market way more than they need to make me happy.
I don't think it's about insidious control over content. I think
it's about keeping the device simple, solid, safe and appliance-like.
Which stinks for me personally, but it's great for the vast market
they're trying to win.
Apple may control *some* of the content via the App store, but
Apple has no control over what folks browse over to on Safari
or any other web browser, and Apple doesn't control the content
that gets fed *through* those apps. Nor, even does Apple control
what media I put on my iPhone.
> This means in particular that preserving, protecting and enabling DRM
> technology in all its variations becomes an absolutely primary concern
Apple played a huge role in convincing record companies to give up
on the DRM for music. And I have no doubt they'd love to make the
MPAA give up some of their DRM rules, too. But it's absolutely not
Apple's fault that those folks insist on DRM (nor is it Apple's fault
that those folks seem to have enormour influence on Congress).
> So, I believe that's primarily why the software for these iGadgets,
> their iOS and file structure,and so on, is designed the way it is -- and
> that that this is a sad situation. (Given this fact, it's no accident
I think that's, at best, secondary. The primary reason seems very
clearly to me to be security and stability.
I think you're looking awfully hard for evil where what's really
happening is someone pleasing a market which you just don't happen
to be a member of.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
Tom Stiller
> In article <tom_stiller-2420...@news.individual.net>,
> Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Consider the possibility that, cool as it may be, the iPad is not the
> > right device for you and the way you work. It might be possible for
> > Apple to modify the device and/or its soft/firmware to satisfy your
> > needs but it's not clear that such modification would be viewed as
> > beneficial to the target customer base.
>
> I do fully consider these points. First of all, it certainly seems that
> the basic software design of the iPad and the other Apple iGadgets makes
> them much less useful than they could be for me as a heavily
> computer-active academic and professional; and this seems likely to be
> the case for a significant number of other similar individuals.
Agreed.
> At the same time, I also fully recognize that, in your phrase, the
> "target customer base" for these gadgets as they are now designed is not
> just large but humongous, and this customer base appears to be in fact
> ecstatically happy with these gadgets as they are now designed
Agreed.
> But, I also believe that the software built into or delivered with these
> gadgets is not designed (that is, is constrained and limited) in the way
> it is primarily to make that enormous customer base happy, although it
> does indeed accomplish that.
The same can be said of devices with embedded linux.
> Rather, it is designed first and foremost, to preserve Apple's control
> over _how_ these gadgets are used, and as much as possible over what
> content flows through them, and thereby to preserve Apple's ability to
> make equally large profits from that aspect of their use.
We disagree here. I think the iOS devices are designed to be appliances
with specific capabilities and functions.
> In particular, very large profits will come not only from selling the
> iGadgets themselves, but even more from selling much of the _content_
> that will be delivered (more explicitly, be _sold_) through them; and so
> it becomes a primary goal for Apple to preserve as much long-term
> control as possible over this latter aspect, and to try to block in
> advance anything that threatens this prospect.
Apple doesn't *sell* content, they *deliver* it. They are a hardware
company.
> This means in particular that preserving, protecting and enabling DRM
> technology in all its variations becomes an absolutely primary concern
> in the basic design of these iGadgets. And doing this is not just
> important for Apple's own marketing of content; it's also essential for
> Apple's commercial relationships to the entertainment industry who will
> generate much of the content that Apple, and they, will market through
> these gadgets.
There is nothing to support your contention that Apple favors or
encourages DRM, except to placate the content owners so that they
(Apple) can deliver it. This is demonstrated in the availability of DRM
free music rom the iTunes store.
> So, I believe that's primarily why the software for these iGadgets,
> their iOS and file structure,and so on, is designed the way it is -- and
> that that this is a sad situation. (Given this fact, it's no accident
> that "jailbreak" is a term that's become prominent in the current
> computer vocabulary.)
I accept neither your premise nor your conclusion. My belief is that
it's to preserve the appliance nature of the iOS devices.
> You may recall the story of how Jobs, trying to recruit Sculley to come
> to Apple, said something like, "Do you want to change the world -- or do
> you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugar water?"
Yeah, so? Do you not believe Apple has changed the world or is it that
you think the iOS devices are analogous to sugar water?
> In my view, Jobs has now redirected a large fraction of Apple's
> energies, not to trying to continue changing the world with computers,
> but to making and selling iGadgets which, while they can with some
> difficulty also be sued for other purposes, are designed primarily to
> market and deliver musical and cultural sugar water.
In my view, Apple continues to change the world and I find it extremely
difficult to distinguish "musical and cultural sugar water" from growth
in and appreciation of musical and cultural awareness.
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Todd Allcock
> Apple played a huge role in convincing record companies to give up
> on the DRM for music.
Huh? The way I remember it was Amazon launched a completely DRM-free
music store, and, after having a modicum of success with it, iTunes
dropped DRM (actually sold both DRM and non-DRM, the latter at a $0.30
premium.)
Todd Allcock
> nonsense. there is *no* requirement that content flow through apple.
> where do people come up with this shit?
Well, you can't have it both ways- whenever anyone says "the iPad
requires a computer to use," you say "only for initial setup."
When anyone says Apple controls content you say "BS, you can put anything
on it you want!"
Which is it? To add any cotent I want, it becomes a slave to an iTunes-
enabled computer. If I don't sync it to a computer, I'm essentially
limited to purchasing content from Apple/iTunes.
Like the old saying, "good, fast, cheap, you can pick any two," with iOS,
you have to pick one- it's either Larry's "pocket box office" locked into
iTunes content, or it's a peripheral reliant on a computer. Which one it
is, of course, is up to the individual end-user, but it's always one or
the other.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > Apple played a huge role in convincing record companies to give up
> > on the DRM for music.
>
> Huh? The way I remember it was Amazon launched a completely DRM-free
> music store, and, after having a modicum of success with it, iTunes
> dropped DRM (actually sold both DRM and non-DRM, the latter at a $0.30
> premium.)
apple said initially when they launched the itunes store that drm was a
necessary evil. steve jobs wrote about his hope that drm would go away,
and it did.
amazon was able to launch a drm-free music store when the record
companies were considering dropping it, while apple was still tied to
existing contracts, so they could not be first.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > nonsense. there is *no* requirement that content flow through apple.
> > where do people come up with this shit?
>
> Well, you can't have it both ways- whenever anyone says "the iPad
> requires a computer to use," you say "only for initial setup."
that's true. a computer is also needed for firmware updates, which for
the ipad has not happened yet.
otherwise, there is no *requirement* to have a computer in order to use
an ipad, it just makes some things a lot easier.
> When anyone says Apple controls content you say "BS, you can put anything
> on it you want!"
>
> Which is it?
both. they are unrelated.
> To add any cotent I want, it becomes a slave to an iTunes-
> enabled computer. If I don't sync it to a computer, I'm essentially
> limited to purchasing content from Apple/iTunes.
being a so called slave to itunes, as you call it, does not mean apple
controls the content or that it must flow through them.
itunes is just a conduit to get the content on the device. there are
alternate apps, although i don't know if there are any for the ipad
yet. there are for ipods.
you can stream content from hulu and netflix. neither one goes through
apple.
you can encode cds you buy in a store. you can copy dvds and violate
the dmca. you can pirate music and videos. you can make your own music
and videos. all of that can be put on an ipad, iphone or ipod. it
doesn't matter.
Todd Allcock
> In article <VReYn.6069$Zi....@newsfe14.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > > nonsense. there is *no* requirement that content flow through apple.
> > > where do people come up with this shit?
> >
> > Well, you can't have it both ways- whenever anyone says "the iPad
> > requires a computer to use," you say "only for initial setup."
>
> that's true. a computer is also needed for firmware updates, which for
> the ipad has not happened yet.
>
> otherwise, there is no *requirement* to have a computer in order to use
> an ipad, it just makes some things a lot easier.
It's required for placing content on the iPad, otherwise you have to
purchase it through Apple*.
(*Yes, a limited amount of non-Apple content is available via apps like
Hulu and Kindle, but most locally stored content would have to come from
iTunes Store. But technically even that content is arguably "Apple
controlled" since the apps serving it up had to be approved by the app
store. Is a "PornTube" app available?)
> > When anyone says Apple controls content you say "BS, you can put
anything
> > on it you want!"
> >
> > Which is it?
>
> both. they are unrelated.
Actually, they seem mutually exclusive. How to we get the non-Apple
controlled content on the iPad, without a iTunes-equipped computer?
> > To add any cotent I want, it becomes a slave to an iTunes-
> > enabled computer. If I don't sync it to a computer, I'm essentially
> > limited to purchasing content from Apple/iTunes.
>
> being a so called slave to itunes, as you call it, does not mean apple
> controls the content or that it must flow through them.
I understand that- that's the _alternative_ to Apple controlling the
content. Again, you can't have it both ways, by claiming both "Apple
doesn't control content" AND "the iP* doesn't require a computer."
No computer = limiting content to Apple-controlled sources.
Adding any content you want = requiring a computer on a regular basis.
> itunes is just a conduit to get the content on the device. there are
> alternate apps, although i don't know if there are any for the ipad
> yet. there are for ipods.
Irrelevant- the alternative apps still un on a computer, therefore the
device requires a computer for ordinary functionality, just like an iPod.
> you can stream content from hulu and netflix. neither one goes through
> apple.
Except via the app approval process.
> you can encode cds you buy in a store.
Tell me how to do that on an iP* without using the computer that isn't
required "except for initial setup."
> you can copy dvds and violate
> the dmca. you can pirate music and videos. you can make your own music
> and videos. all of that can be put on an ipad, iphone or ipod. it
> doesn't matter.
Put on an iPad, how, exactly? With a...?
Again, I'm not saying Apple controls the content on an iP* device- I'm
just saying you can't deny that claim without acknowledging the iP*
requires a connected computer for operation, a claim you repeatedly deny
(with the caviat "except for initial setup.")
Jochem Huhmann
>> that's true. a computer is also needed for firmware updates, which for
>> the ipad has not happened yet.
>>
>> otherwise, there is no *requirement* to have a computer in order to use
>> an ipad, it just makes some things a lot easier.
>
> It's required for placing content on the iPad, otherwise you have to
> purchase it through Apple*.
Hmm, with iOS 4.0 you can now save books mailed to you as an attachment
right to iBooks from within the Mail app. There's actually an API now
which apps can use to announce the file types they accept, so that apps
can send documents to each other. And you can use dropbox and other
cloud services to get at documents.
I agree that all the file management in iOS is an absurd mess as soon as
you don't go through iTunes. But Apple is not trying to allow only stuff
you bought from them on these devices or totally force you to go through
iTunes.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Paul Murray
> Which is it? To add any cotent I want, it becomes a slave to an iTunes-
> enabled computer. If I don't sync it to a computer, I'm essentially
> limited to purchasing content from Apple/iTunes.
No, you aren't.
You can transfer any files you want into GoodReader (for example) from FTP,
WebDAV, http browsing, DropBox, etc... and then Open In... in any app that
supports this.
You can buy books from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and many others.
Wes Groleau
> iTunes Store. But technically even that content is arguably "Apple
> controlled" since the apps serving it up had to be approved by the app
> store. Is a "PornTube" app available?)
I hear that Apple is quite resistant to porn in the apps store.
But some of the music and some of the 99-cent movies in the
iTunes Store seem like porn to me...
--
Wes Groleau
Learning to see the forest instead of the trees.
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=75
Wes Groleau
> Hmm, with iOS 4.0 you can now save books mailed to you as an attachment
> right to iBooks from within the Mail app. There's actually an API now
Can that feature also save videos?
Images? Documents for iWork?
Project files for Audacity?
(oh-oh, now I’m getting dangerous…)
Applications? :-)
--
Wes Groleau
Small class size and its opponents
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=992
Jochem Huhmann
> On 07-05-2010 09:32, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
>> Hmm, with iOS 4.0 you can now save books mailed to you as an attachment
>> right to iBooks from within the Mail app. There's actually an API now
>
> Can that feature also save videos?
> Images? Documents for iWork?
> Project files for Audacity?
I have no idea, I don't have a 4.0-capable iThing. As far as I know this
feature is only limited to what developers add to their apps and to what
Apple allows, of course. I don't think you'll ever see an app that
allows saving a mp3 from a torrent to the music library...
> (oh-oh, now I’m getting dangerous…)
> Applications? :-)
;-)
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > > > nonsense. there is *no* requirement that content flow through apple.
> > > > where do people come up with this shit?
> > >
> > > Well, you can't have it both ways- whenever anyone says "the iPad
> > > requires a computer to use," you say "only for initial setup."
> >
> > that's true. a computer is also needed for firmware updates, which for
> > the ipad has not happened yet.
> >
> > otherwise, there is no *requirement* to have a computer in order to use
> > an ipad, it just makes some things a lot easier.
>
> It's required for placing content on the iPad, otherwise you have to
> purchase it through Apple*.
i don't consider that to be content flowing through apple.
yes you need to use itunes to sync content (unless you want to deal
with one of the alternatives which may not work that well), but the
content is still whatever *you* want to sync.
> (*Yes, a limited amount of non-Apple content is available via apps like
> Hulu and Kindle, but most locally stored content would have to come from
> iTunes Store. But technically even that content is arguably "Apple
> controlled" since the apps serving it up had to be approved by the app
> store. Is a "PornTube" app available?)
yes, it's called safari and ships with every device. :)
there are also dozens of browser alternatives, all of which were
approved by apple and all of which can access porn sites.
now that the porn industry has declared they are not going to be using
flash, there will be even more porn available on ipads and iphones.
> Actually, they seem mutually exclusive. How to we get the non-Apple
> controlled content on the iPad, without a iTunes-equipped computer?
almost everyone who has an iphone, ipad or ipod uses itunes. very, very
few bother with one of the alternatives.
> > you can stream content from hulu and netflix. neither one goes through
> > apple.
>
> Except via the app approval process.
both have been approved, so whatever content you want to watch is what
hulu or netflix decides to carry, not apple. the content flows through
*them*.
there is also the slingbox app and apps that can stream from your home
library.
> > you can encode cds you buy in a store.
>
> Tell me how to do that on an iP* without using the computer that isn't
> required "except for initial setup."
encode it prior to the initial setup and then sync that music.
> > you can copy dvds and violate
> > the dmca. you can pirate music and videos. you can make your own music
> > and videos. all of that can be put on an ipad, iphone or ipod. it
> > doesn't matter.
>
> Put on an iPad, how, exactly? With a...?
itunes.
> Again, I'm not saying Apple controls the content on an iP* device-
someone else did.
> I'm just saying you can't deny that claim without acknowledging the iP*
> requires a connected computer for operation, a claim you repeatedly deny
> (with the caviat "except for initial setup.")
it makes a lot of things easier but it's not required.
for instance, it's possible that someone might not care about music or
video on their ipad, and instead use it for browsing, email, reading
kindle books or emailed pdf files, games, etc.
AES
wrote:
> I agree that all the file management in iOS is an absurd mess as soon as
> you don't go through iTunes. But Apple is not trying to allow only stuff
> you bought from them on these devices or totally force you to go through
> iTunes.
As the OP (or one of the OPs) on this thread, I don't argue that "Apple
is trying to allow only stuff you bought from them on these devices or
totally force you to go through iTunes".
However, it is the case, is it not, that the _only_ way you can put any
audio content that you didn't buy from Apple onto an iGadget _and play
it_ from that iGadget, is to go thru iTunes (or maybe the Apple Store),
or else "jailbreak" your iPod? Is that not the case?
["Prisoner of iTunes - the iPad file transfer horror"
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/07/ipad_file_transfer/> ]
My assertion is that Apple created this "absurd mess" (your phrase)
associated with iOS, not primarily to make their iGadgets better and
easier to use for entertainment consumers.
Rather they created this mess in this way primarily so that these
devices would be able to enforce as much as possible all the DRM and
DRM-type limitations associated with the products of the commercial
entertainment industry (the "cultural sugar water"), and increasingly of
Apple itself.
They _could_ have built their iGadgets starting with the classic file
system, Finder, and apps model that is the foundation of their own
computers and essentially all other computers; and then built their
novice-user-friendly entertainment-oriented interface as a primary
option on top of that. That would have made the iGadgets equally (and
very) useful both for "real computer users" and for entertainment
consumers -- but it would have reduced the protection for many aspects
of DRM
Adrian C
>
> However, it is the case, is it not, that the _only_ way you can put any
> audio content that you didn't buy from Apple onto an iGadget _and play
> it_ from that iGadget, is to go thru iTunes (or maybe the Apple Store),
> or else "jailbreak" your iPod? Is that not the case?
No. Spotify.
--
Adrian C
nospam
AES <sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> However, it is the case, is it not, that the _only_ way you can put any
> audio content that you didn't buy from Apple onto an iGadget _and play
> it_ from that iGadget, is to go thru iTunes (or maybe the Apple Store),
> or else "jailbreak" your iPod? Is that not the case?
no.
using itunes is by far the easiest and most practical way, but there
are other methods including itunes alternatives and apps that manage
their own content. jailbreaking is not required and doesn't really
matter anyway.
what is this aversion to itunes anyway? it's just an app. you want
finder instead, which is also just an app. itunes is designed to manage
music and videos and sync it, while finder is not. itunes does a much,
much better job of it. why do people insist on doing things the hard
way?
> My assertion is that Apple created this "absurd mess" (your phrase)
> associated with iOS, not primarily to make their iGadgets better and
> easier to use for entertainment consumers.
>
> Rather they created this mess in this way primarily so that these
> devices would be able to enforce as much as possible all the DRM and
> DRM-type limitations associated with the products of the commercial
> entertainment industry (the "cultural sugar water"), and increasingly of
> Apple itself.
except that itunes does not require drm content. you can use your own
music and videos or even pirated music and videos. apple does not want
the drm, they are forced to use it by the content owners.
> They _could_ have built their iGadgets starting with the classic file
> system, Finder, and apps model that is the foundation of their own
> computers and essentially all other computers; and then built their
> novice-user-friendly entertainment-oriented interface as a primary
> option on top of that. That would have made the iGadgets equally (and
> very) useful both for "real computer users" and for entertainment
> consumers -- but it would have reduced the protection for many aspects
> of DRM
they could have done a lot of things. the choices they made resulted in
having about 70% of the portable music player market, so it's very
clear they chose well.
BreadW...@fractious.net
> In article <TReYn.6068$Zi....@newsfe14.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > > Apple played a huge role in convincing record companies to give up
> > > on the DRM for music.
> >
> > Huh? The way I remember it was Amazon launched a completely DRM-free
> > music store, and, after having a modicum of success with it, iTunes
> > dropped DRM (actually sold both DRM and non-DRM, the latter at a $0.30
> > premium.)
>
> apple said initially when they launched the itunes store that drm was a
> necessary evil. steve jobs wrote about his hope that drm would go away,
> and it did.
He was quite outspoken about it. He made it clear that he didn't
want DRM, but without it, the record companies wouldn't have dealt
with him at all. And it was essential that he got them on board
in order to launch the whole thing in the first place.
> amazon was able to launch a drm-free music store when the record
> companies were considering dropping it, while apple was still tied to
> existing contracts, so they could not be first.
Amazon would likely never have gotten any traction at all had Apple
not already paved the way.
Jochem Huhmann
> However, it is the case, is it not, that the _only_ way you can put any
> audio content that you didn't buy from Apple onto an iGadget _and play
> it_ from that iGadget, is to go thru iTunes (or maybe the Apple Store),
> or else "jailbreak" your iPod? Is that not the case?
No. Use dropbox, throw mp3s into it, play them from within the dropbox
app. If you "star" them, they'll be saved locally, too.
> Rather they created this mess in this way primarily so that these
> devices would be able to enforce as much as possible all the DRM and
> DRM-type limitations associated with the products of the commercial
> entertainment industry (the "cultural sugar water"), and increasingly of
> Apple itself.
Partly, yes. They're out there to make money, you know.
> They _could_ have built their iGadgets starting with the classic file
> system, Finder, and apps model that is the foundation of their own
> computers and essentially all other computers; and then built their
> novice-user-friendly entertainment-oriented interface as a primary
> option on top of that. That would have made the iGadgets equally (and
> very) useful both for "real computer users" and for entertainment
> consumers -- but it would have reduced the protection for many aspects
> of DRM
Come on, you don't want to have to dig around in the file system with a
Finder like app on such an appliance. Yes, it would've been even easier
to implement but they would've never even bothered with the whole idea
then, believe me. They want to make it easy to use the thing *and* to
buy things, preferably from Apple, no doubt.
And don't think that "user-friendlyness" is something you can just drape
over a basically user-unfriendly setup. You can put all the sugar you
want over a file manager you have to use to dig around in 32 GB of
operating system and apps and data files and folders without *that* ever
becoming user friendly in something you want to be able to use
one-handed standing in a subway train while chatting with your
neighbour.
The whole idea of the iThings, starting with the iPod, is to build
something that does not require the user to focus much attention,
concentration, knowledge or carefulness on it. Dealing with a file
system is one of the first things that had to go and they're right with
this. You're supposed to ever only deal with the payload and never with
the structure and the innards of what makes the things actually work.
In case you havent't noticed: In the iPod and the iPhone and the iPad
you never have to deal with "files". You deal with songs or photos or
movies or books. This is a feature.
BreadW...@fractious.net
> itunes is just a conduit to get the content on the device. there are
> alternate apps, although i don't know if there are any for the ipad
> yet. there are for ipods.
iTunes is simply the software through which content is loaded
onto the iPad and iPod.
The content itself does not have to come from apple. Anything
in a variety of standard open formats will work.
It's a shame that Apple won't allow a few more formats, but given
their heavy use of hardware acceleration for things like video, it's
not terribly surprising. It should be my choice, but I can transcode
on my desktop machine and then load it.
nospam
<BreadW...@fractious.net> wrote:
> Amazon would likely never have gotten any traction at all had Apple
> not already paved the way.
very true.
BreadW...@fractious.net
> On 07-05-2010 09:32, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> > Hmm, with iOS 4.0 you can now save books mailed to you as an attachment
> > right to iBooks from within the Mail app. There's actually an API now
You can "send" documents from any one app to any other app which lets
the OS know that it knows how to handle that file type.
> Can that feature also save videos?
> Images? Documents for iWork?
Yes (I think), yes and yes.
> Applications? :-)
No. The recipient of the document must be an application and no
application other than the App Store app knows how to "receive"
app files or install them.
Wes Groleau
> In case you havent't noticed: In the iPod and the iPhone and the iPad
> you never have to deal with "files". You deal with songs or photos or
> movies or books. This is a feature.
Nor directories, instead albums and shelves and books and artists.
But I want staples, pamphlets, folders, drawers, and cabinets!! :-)
Heck, how about baskets, buckets, scoops, and shovels? :-)
--
Wes Groleau
Why some kids act strange
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1491
Jochem Huhmann
> Everything depends on the file path, and if one aspect of what you're
> trying to do steals that, then the rest just have to fit in.
>
> Or it might be the compiler, or make. Each of these insists you have
> paths to your files written into the data it's using. Yes, you can
> restructure your 500 .c or .h files, but it won't be easy.
Hey, we're talking about appliances here, not about servers or
development machines. The average person would not even know what you're
talking about here. Which proves a point or two, I think.
Tom Stiller
> They _could_ have built their iGadgets starting with the classic file
> system, Finder, and apps model that is the foundation of their own
> computers and essentially all other computers; and then built their
> novice-user-friendly entertainment-oriented interface as a primary
> option on top of that. That would have made the iGadgets equally (and
> very) useful both for "real computer users" and for entertainment
> consumers -- but it would have reduced the protection for many aspects
> of DRM
Sure, they _could_ have but why bother when the target demographic
doesn't need and, for the most part, doesn't want the added complexity.
It's clear that the iOS devices aren't for you. Good luck with whatever
you choose to replace them.
AES
wrote:
> Come on, you don't want to have to dig around in the file system with a
> Finder like app on such an appliance.
Yes, that's absolutely what I want to do -- and what I think a lot of
other people would also want to do.
Suppose I'm heading out the door on a short (or long) excursion, during
which I'll only need some of my files and some of iPad's capabilities,
whatever they are. I want to be able to:
--Transfer any one of the many "topic" folders that are on my desktop
(and that may contain a bewildering variety of file types and formats)
straight over to the USB-connected iPad's icon on the same desktop (or
maybe do this via WiFi) with _one_ single familiar drag and drop
operation;
--Access a few of those files on the iPad during the excursion, for
reading or viewing or listening, maybe for some light editing, to
whatever extent the iPad can do this;
--Maybe transfer some of those files (or the whole folder) over to a
colleague, or to a temporarily available computer, during the excursion,
again with nothing more than a USB (or maybe WiFi) connection and a
single drag and drop action;
--and when I get back home, transfer the whole folder, in one swoop,
back to my home computer in the same single drag-and-drop manner.
I don't want to even think about having to do any of those transfers
using iTunes, or Dropbox, or whatever, because:
--It's stupidly unnecessary to have to maintain, fire up, learn to use,
and carry out these transfers via a complex and totally unrelated 200 MB
app like iTunes, when this is exactly what the Finder is for!;
--And I don't (and can't, ever) trust some that some app like that will
be able to handle every single one of all the files and file types that
may be in my topic folder I'm copying over, and not screw up or bypass
some of those files -- whereas I am willing to trust the Finder;
--And I don't want to worry about what unknown synching, or copying to
obscure places, or just plain trashing of my files may be done by iTunes
or other apps, based on DRM or whatever, without alerting me or before I
can stop it (happens all the time with iTunes, right?);
and mostly, because it's just really stupidly unnecessary to have to do
such transfers this way.
Wes Groleau
> Everything depends on the file path, and if one aspect of what you're
> trying to do steals that, then the rest just have to fit in.
To put it another way, if families live in households, and households
are described on census pages, and census pages are in enumeration
districts, which are within townships, counties, states, with a
different organization each decade, what do you do with
.../1960/OK/Tulsa/Tulsa/ED231/P102A/H104/Groleau
and
.../1970/OR/Lane/T23E-R15N/ED101/P12B/H87/Groleau
when you want to follow the growth of this family?
What if (probably the case, but I don't know) since
townships are much smaller in western states, either
that level or the E.D. level is not used in Oregon?
--
Wes Groleau
Hillary Insults Virgen de Guadalupe?
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1531
Lloyd Parsons
AES <sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
Then it is very obvious that the iPad wasn't meant for you at all. No
problem, don't buy and iPad, get a laptop.
--
Lloyd
AES
BreadW...@fractious.net wrote:
> > Applications? :-)
>
> No. The recipient of the document must be an application and no
> application other than the App Store app knows how to "receive"
> app files or install them.
>
And this is (with only slight exaggeration or hyerbole) a purely evil
limitation.
AES
Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> Suppose I'm a web developer, and I have 500 files in my web
> app (the asset management system I did for my last employer comes to
> mind). Suppose now I want to reorganise how I group the files into
> directories - can I do that easily?
On a Mac? -- yes, of course.
Do that all the time myself, in fact, at least with large numbers of a
very wide range of text and image files, in a near unlimited variety of
formats, using for example, the superb iView MediaPro file management
system.
Allows me, right from within a IVMP catalog, to batch rename and
renumber files (including a very good Find and Replace capability);
resort them on a huge range of sort criteria; transfer them between
folders using any of three selected different transfer modes; and so on.
And if I needed more, I have no doubt I could do many additional things
using AppleScript, which doesn't look all that hard to learn.
Jochem Huhmann
First, the iPad isn't for you.
Second: You seem to enjoy micromanaging in a nearly pathological way.
You insist in doing things *your* way, as you're used to do them. You
haven't even once in all these paragraphs said what you're actually
doing. You just talk about *how* you want to do it. You sound like
someone used to horse carriages looking at a motor car and complaining
about the absurd thing that you hardly can harness a horse to and it's
much too heavy anyway with all the useless metal things under the hood.
Third: Dropbox looks as if it would do almost all of what you want to do
with no setup, maintenance or learning at all.
Nevermind,
Wes Groleau
> Allows me, right from within a IVMP catalog, to batch rename and
> renumber files (including a very good Find and Replace capability);
> resort them on a huge range of sort criteria; transfer them between
> folders using any of three selected different transfer modes; and so on.
I’m not familiar with the application mentioned, but it would be trivial
to interpret
.../year/state/county/township/street
as five columns in a database table,
and display them in any style or sequence on could do with such a table.
It would be almost as trivial to reorganize the associated files to
have the directory levels in a different order. Gets slightly more
complicated if some states don’t have townships, but still not bad.
But if those are things you want to do, then who needs a filesystem
per se? How about one giant database, where an application
- decides what the columns are in tables it defines
- decides what table definitions will be made public and/or writable
by other apps
- decides (if the defining app allows), what heirarchy, if any, the
columns are in
- (finally) whether a particular table includes a column which
contains the contents of traditional “files”
Such could be implemented within a more traditional filesystem
where only the O.S./database program has direct access to the
filesystem, and the apps have to use the associated API to get
to stuff.
When the filesystem is all in flash memory, why not. In fact,
a traditional file system is actually such a system where the
disk surface is the database and the filesystem is the API.
But it's a much less flexible system.
There was once an O.S. called “PICK” that was touted as something
like this, I think. I never clicked on any of the links posted
for it.
--
Wes Groleau
Some schools are cutting back on homework …
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1508
Wes Groleau
> Then it is very obvious that the iPad wasn't meant for you at all. No
> problem, don't buy and iPad, get a laptop.
Or install XCode and write your own Finder-like app
I’m told that you don’t need app-store approval to
put your own apps on your own iP((a\o)d|hone)
(iThing for those not fond of geekspeak)
--
Wes Groleau
Words of the Wild Wes
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW
Wes Groleau
> someone used to horse carriages looking at a motor car and complaining
> about the absurd thing that you hardly can harness a horse to and it's
> much too heavy anyway with all the useless metal things under the hood.
And how can the reins work with this stupid piece of glass
between me and the horse?
--
Wes Groleau
Mexico Under Siege
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1534
nospam
Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> I always thought Apple missed a trick with OS X. The file view I had
> under classic MacOS was the right one - desktop at the top and then
> volumes sitting on/under that. Eventually they gave us something
> *looking* like that for OS X - but it's bastardised; one's desktop is
> shown as sitting somewhere down the file system hierarchy rather than at
> the top. They should have put an abstraction layer on top of the actual
> filesystem to hide these aspects.
what they did with finder in os x is awful. that's a rant for another
day. :)
nospam
Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> How about if I want to arganise by composer? I don't have "songs" except
> possibly those written by Schubert, and I'm not particularly bothered
> which artist is performing the piece.
there's a composer option in the ipod app (which is recent).
however, the problem is that nobody at apple cares about music that
isn't mainstream pop/rock. other genres, including classical, world and
especially showtunes do *not* fit into the genre/artist/album hierarchy
very well at all.
Wes Groleau
> In essence this is what I'm getting at. But you'd have to modify apache,
> and all the other things such as compilers etc which today assume a
> standard unix filesystem - and then steal it away from the
> user/developer in the way I described.
OR, provide a wrapper API that uses the DB-style API to provide a
traditional file system to apps that need it.
and sigged:
> "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
> nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
How about excessive bail-outs? :-)
--
Wes Groleau
Krashen vs. grammar?
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=114
Wes Groleau
> however, the problem is that nobody at apple cares about music that
> isn't mainstream pop/rock. other genres, including classical, world and
> especially showtunes do *not* fit into the genre/artist/album hierarchy
> very well at all.
That’s because neither does the “market” or “audience” we’ve been saying
the iThings are built for.
--
Wes Groleau
New numbers for next year
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1495
Richard Maine
> AES <sie...@stanford.edu> writes:
> [longish rant]
> First, the iPad isn't for you.
Yep. I'd say that is more than obvious.
> Second: You seem to enjoy micromanaging in a nearly pathological way.
> You insist in doing things *your* way, as you're used to do them. You
> haven't even once in all these paragraphs said what you're actually
> doing. You just talk about *how* you want to do it. You sound like
> someone used to horse carriages looking at a motor car and complaining
> about the absurd thing that you hardly can harness a horse to and it's
> much too heavy anyway with all the useless metal things under the hood.
And doesn't really understand why the darn thing isn't designed for his
way. I'd guess that he doesn't really understand how to design for the
larger market. That being something that Apple excels at, I doubt they
would be wise to throw out all their design principles and follow AES's
advice.
Understand that just because something isn't for you, that doesn't mean
you have to go inventing reasons why it must be "evil." I might even go
so far as to say that Windows isn't evil. (Ok, that might be a stretch
:-)) But it sure isn't for me.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
nospam
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > however, the problem is that nobody at apple cares about music that
> > isn't mainstream pop/rock. other genres, including classical, world and
> > especially showtunes do *not* fit into the genre/artist/album hierarchy
> > very well at all.
>
> Thatąs because neither does the łmarket˛ or łaudience˛ weąve been saying
> the iThings are built for.
ipods maybe.
however, ipads, iphones and ipod touches appeal to a much wider
audience for a variety of different reasons.
nospam
<michelle-1C6F10...@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > How about if I want to arganise by composer?
>
> No problem. Press Command-J, and check the "Composer" checkbox; then click
> OK. You now have a Composer column, and can sort/organize on it.
that's true but that does nothing for putting composer into the browser
columns. those are hard coded to genre/artist/album.
and then there's the ipod. yes there's now a composer tab (took long
enough), but it's not really that useful.
nospam
<michelle-4923D2...@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > that's true but that does nothing for putting composer into the browser
> > columns. those are hard coded to genre/artist/album.
>
> I'm missing something; what do you mean by "browser columns"?
the browser interface that used to have a button on the main window but
is now relegated to the view menu, under column browser. command-b for
mac, control-b for windows.
<http://images.macworld.com/images/howto/graphics/140547-itunes-browser-
586_original.jpg>
oddly enough, it looks like itunes 9 now has composer and groupings
available. i never noticed that before. that's a welcome addition but
it still isn't exactly ideal.
what *really* needs to happen is being able to define the column
headings for any tag and put them in any order and have it apply to a
particular playlist (which view options currently does). that way, it
can be tweaked for the nuances of each genre and for the user's needs.
what works for rock music does not work for showtunes, for example.
David Empson
> In article <050720101717355121%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > How about if I want to arganise by composer?
> > >
> > > No problem. Press Command-J, and check the "Composer" checkbox; then
> > > click OK. You now have a Composer column, and can sort/organize on
> > > it.
> >
> > that's true but that does nothing for putting composer into the browser
> > columns. those are hard coded to genre/artist/album.
>
> I'm missing something; what do you mean by "browser columns"?
View > Column Browser > Show Column Browser
From the same submenu you can change whether it appears on the left or
top of the main pane of the iTunes window.
In iTunes 9.2, you can turn on a Composer column, which solves Tim's
complaint at least as far as iTunes is concerned.
This may be a recent addition, as I recall old versions of iTunes could
only show Genre, Artist and Album in the browser. (I turned off Genre,
but I don't recall if the other two were selectable.)
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
nospam
<dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> This may be a recent addition, as I recall old versions of iTunes could
> only show Genre, Artist and Album in the browser. (I turned off Genre,
> but I don't recall if the other two were selectable.)
9.0 it seems is where composer appeared, and genre enable/disable was
hidden in some versions for some bizarre reason.
Todd Allcock
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:050720100810577236%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> In article <oKkYn.9498$3%3.7...@newsfe23.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > nonsense. there is *no* requirement that content flow through
>> > > > apple.
>> > > > where do people come up with this shit?
>> > >
>> > > Well, you can't have it both ways- whenever anyone says "the iPad
>> > > requires a computer to use," you say "only for initial setup."
>> >
>> > that's true. a computer is also needed for firmware updates, which for
>> > the ipad has not happened yet.
>> >
>> > otherwise, there is no *requirement* to have a computer in order to use
>> > an ipad, it just makes some things a lot easier.
>>
>> It's required for placing content on the iPad, otherwise you have to
>> purchase it through Apple*.
>
> i don't consider that to be content flowing through apple.
>
> yes you need to use itunes to sync content (unless you want to deal
> with one of the alternatives which may not work that well), but the
> content is still whatever *you* want to sync.
Right, which most of us would accept as meaning "the iP* requires a sync
computer for normal operation..."
>> (*Yes, a limited amount of non-Apple content is available via apps like
>> Hulu and Kindle, but most locally stored content would have to come from
>> iTunes Store. But technically even that content is arguably "Apple
>> controlled" since the apps serving it up had to be approved by the app
>> store. Is a "PornTube" app available?)
>
> yes, it's called safari and ships with every device. :)
>
> there are also dozens of browser alternatives, all of which were
> approved by apple and all of which can access porn sites.
>
> now that the porn industry has declared they are not going to be using
> flash, there will be even more porn available on ipads and iphones.
I was unaware the porn industry spoke with a single voice! ;)
>> Actually, they seem mutually exclusive. How to we get the non-Apple
>> controlled content on the iPad, without a iTunes-equipped computer?
>
> almost everyone who has an iphone, ipad or ipod uses itunes. very, very
> few bother with one of the alternatives.
Agreed- therefore, the iP* requires a iTunes equipped computer for normal
operation...
>> > you can stream content from hulu and netflix. neither one goes through
>> > apple.
>>
>> Except via the app approval process.
>
> both have been approved, so whatever content you want to watch is what
> hulu or netflix decides to carry, not apple. the content flows through
> *them*.
I'll give you that, with the reservation that only services Apple approves
of will get into the app store, of course.
Again, I'm not actually siding with the OP's "Apple controls all content"
nonsense- I'm taking issue with your continued claim that the iPad functions
without a computer. Sure, it can technically, but is neutered if attempted.
>> > you can encode cds you buy in a store.
>>
>> Tell me how to do that on an iP* without using the computer that isn't
>> required "except for initial setup."
>
> encode it prior to the initial setup and then sync that music.
And never change your media again. That's the user experience Apple
intended?
>> > you can copy dvds and violate
>> > the dmca. you can pirate music and videos. you can make your own music
>> > and videos. all of that can be put on an ipad, iphone or ipod. it
>> > doesn't matter.
>>
>> Put on an iPad, how, exactly? With a...?
>
> itunes.
Which means (say it with me!) "the iP* requires a iTunes equipped computer
for normal operation..."
>> Again, I'm not saying Apple controls the content on an iP* device-
>
> someone else did.
Yes- I just used that as the opportunity to point out how silly your usual
claim that the iPad doesn't need a computer was.
>> I'm just saying you can't deny that claim without acknowledging the iP*
>> requires a connected computer for operation, a claim you repeatedly deny
>> (with the caviat "except for initial setup.")
>
> it makes a lot of things easier but it's not required.
Using that logic, a charger isn't required either, if someone only wants to
use their iPad for 20 hours, then lock it in their desk drawer. What type
of user experience will anyone get without the ability to load music,
documents, etc. via iTunes?
> for instance, it's possible that someone might not care about music or
> video on their ipad, and instead use it for browsing, email, reading
> kindle books or emailed pdf files, games, etc.
Hmm, sounds like one of those "edge cases" you call others out on onto the
carpet for suggesting!
Todd Allcock
"Wes Groleau" <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote in message
news:i0teir$g10$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 07-05-2010 15:58, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
>> someone used to horse carriages looking at a motor car and complaining
>> about the absurd thing that you hardly can harness a horse to and it's
>> much too heavy anyway with all the useless metal things under the hood.
>
> And how can the reins work with this stupid piece of glass
> between me and the horse?
While full file system access probably isn't desirable on something like an
iPad, does no one find it ironic that each new OS iteration adds additional
kludges to simulate the function of a file system? Shared folders?
"Sending" copies of files from one compatibile app to another? Apple's
working pretty hard to cobble together a fairly complicated simulation of a
file system to make things "easier" that having a user accessible file
system!
Microsoft's Activesync for Windows Mobile is starting to look better and
better- it simply synced a specific sync folder between the device and PC.
Apps on the device stored their data in the shared docs folder on the
device, which automaitically synced to the PC at every connection. Neither
the PC nor the device cared what type of files were there- it just synced
everything in the folder. iTunes does this now for iPads, except the
file/types are limited to what iTunes "understands" based on
installed/included apps.
AES
> In article <i0t7tc$jaq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> > On 07-05-2010 12:30, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> > > In case you havent't noticed: In the iPod and the iPhone and the iPad
> > > you never have to deal with "files". You deal with songs or photos or
> > > movies or books. This is a feature.
> >
> > Nor directories, instead albums and shelves and books and artists.
>
> How about if I want to arganise by composer? I don't have "songs" except
> possibly those written by Schubert, and I'm not particularly bothered
> which artist is performing the piece.
>
Or the audio files one is dealing with are not music at all -- they're
seminars, talks, lectures, sound-tracks, animal sounds, bird calls,
traffic noise recordings, innumerable other kinds of audio research
files -- and the whole pop music vocabulary and organizational structure
built into iTunes is not just irrelevant but totally gets in the way.
Sure, one can tediously modify the names, labels, categories, etc in
iTunes to fit other situations -- but no one who's had experience with
any really good media management and cataloging software (and there are
several examples of such for the Mac) would ever go near iTunes for this
function.
AES
Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> >
> > Allows me, right from within a IVMP catalog, to batch rename and
> > renumber files (including a very good Find and Replace capability);
> > resort them on a huge range of sort criteria; transfer them between
> > folders using any of three selected different transfer modes; and so on.
>
> And it rewrites all your htaccess and make files, does it?
>
Just typed "htaccess" into Find windows in the Mac Finder Help and into
an online Users Guide for Tiger -- no hits in either.
Somehow the Finder and IVMP (which, by the way, runs great in its
Windows version also) don't seem to be concerned about these files,
whatever they are -- nor am I.
nospam
<siegman-D31723...@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>, AES
<sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Sure, one can tediously modify the names, labels, categories, etc in
> iTunes to fit other situations
you can also tediously drag the files to particular folders. if you
want it organized a certain way, you are going to have to do it one way
or another.
> -- but no one who's had experience with
> any really good media management and cataloging software (and there are
> several examples of such for the Mac) would ever go near iTunes for this
> function.
yes they would.
you use iview to manage photos, right? why not finder? it's the same
concept.
Wes Groleau
> isn't mainstream pop/rock. other genres, including classical, world and
And yet I still thoroughly enjoyed my iTunes, then my iPod, and now the
iPod portion of my iPhone by completely ignoring albums, composers,
and artists, and looking only at the song list and the playlists.
--
Wes Groleau
Semantic technologies
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=97
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> While full file system access probably isn't desirable on something like an
> iPad, does no one find it ironic that each new OS iteration adds additional
> kludges to simulate the function of a file system? Shared folders?
> "Sending" copies of files from one compatibile app to another? Apple's
> working pretty hard to cobble together a fairly complicated simulation of a
> file system to make things "easier" that having a user accessible file
> system!
the current implementation is not particularly good. hopefully it gets
better very soon.
Wes Groleau
> what*really* needs to happen is being able to define the column
> headings for any tag and put them in any order and have it apply to a
> particular playlist (which view options currently does). that way, it
> can be tweaked for the nuances of each genre and for the user's needs.
> what works for rock music does not work for showtunes, for example.
Ah, so you want the "database filesystem" I was suggesting
for Tim Streater. :-)
--
Wes Groleau
It seems a pity that psychology should have
destroyed all our knowledge of human nature.
-- G. K. Chesterton
Wes Groleau
> I'll give you that, with the reservation that only services Apple approves
> of will get into the app store, of course.
They’ve already approved Safari, Google, FireFox, Opera, and YouTube …
--
Wes Groleau
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity.
But I'm not so sure about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein
Wes Groleau
> Just typed "htaccess" into Find windows in the Mac Finder Help and into
> an online Users Guide for Tiger -- no hits in either.
Two reasons for that: (1) it’s .htaccess, so it's not a file that the
Finder will normally show you. (2) It's only of concern to a webmaster,
so it doesn't belong in the Finder help, and probably not in an O.S. guide.
--
Wes Groleau
Fuggedaboudit !
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=91
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > now that the porn industry has declared they are not going to be using
> > flash, there will be even more porn available on ipads and iphones.
>
> I was unaware the porn industry spoke with a single voice! ;)
<http://www.conceivablytech.com/1553/business/an-unexpected-apple-ally-p
orn-industry-to-drop-flash/>
> >> Actually, they seem mutually exclusive. How to we get the non-Apple
> >> controlled content on the iPad, without a iTunes-equipped computer?
> >
> > almost everyone who has an iphone, ipad or ipod uses itunes. very, very
> > few bother with one of the alternatives.
>
> Agreed- therefore, the iP* requires a iTunes equipped computer for normal
> operation...
most people have itunes so it's a non-issue.
my point is that the ipad is not a paperweight if the user does not
have itunes, once past the initial setup. it's not as functional, sure,
but it's still usable.
> >> > you can encode cds you buy in a store.
> >>
> >> Tell me how to do that on an iP* without using the computer that isn't
> >> required "except for initial setup."
> >
> > encode it prior to the initial setup and then sync that music.
>
> And never change your media again. That's the user experience Apple
> intended?
probably not, but it's a valid use case. if someone doesn't buy a lot
of music, their library might remain fairly static.
> >> I'm just saying you can't deny that claim without acknowledging the iP*
> >> requires a connected computer for operation, a claim you repeatedly deny
> >> (with the caviat "except for initial setup.")
> >
> > it makes a lot of things easier but it's not required.
>
> Using that logic, a charger isn't required either, if someone only wants to
> use their iPad for 20 hours, then lock it in their desk drawer. What type
> of user experience will anyone get without the ability to load music,
> documents, etc. via iTunes?
that's a bit of a stretch.
however, given its long battery life, it's very possible to take it on
a short trip *without* a charger and know that it will likely last the
entire time, whereas a laptop might not.
> > for instance, it's possible that someone might not care about music or
> > video on their ipad, and instead use it for browsing, email, reading
> > kindle books or emailed pdf files, games, etc.
>
> Hmm, sounds like one of those "edge cases" you call others out on onto the
> carpet for suggesting!
it's less of an edge case than an ipod nano user which can do little
else than play music.
there are a *lot* of non-music, non-video things an iphone/ipad can do.
Jochem Huhmann
> While full file system access probably isn't desirable on something like an
> iPad, does no one find it ironic that each new OS iteration adds additional
> kludges to simulate the function of a file system? Shared folders?
> "Sending" copies of files from one compatibile app to another? Apple's
> working pretty hard to cobble together a fairly complicated simulation of a
> file system to make things "easier" that having a user accessible file
> system!
Yes, even without a file system you need some ways to manage and transfer
certain kinds of files... call it "document system" if you like ;-)
I agree that much of what Apple has added here looks like kludges. I
hope they will one day see the light and string all of this together and
export all documents in all apps as a virtual file system via USB.
Then you could finally plug the thing into any computer and would be
able to copy documents on and off it.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Wes Groleau
> export all documents in all apps as a virtual file system via USB.
> Then you could finally plug the thing into any computer and would be
> able to copy documents on and off it.
And then those of us that whose relatives finally understand
that we refuse to fix trashed Windows systems would want us
to fix trashed iPads, and the education would have to start
all over again.
--
Wes Groleau
Learning Another Language is Hard!
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1013
Todd Allcock
> On 07-06-2010 06:14, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> > export all documents in all apps as a virtual file system via USB.
> > Then you could finally plug the thing into any computer and would be
> > able to copy documents on and off it.
>
> And then those of us that whose relatives finally understand
> that we refuse to fix trashed Windows systems would want us
> to fix trashed iPads, and the education would have to start
> all over again.
Not really- the "secret" to File Management for Dummies, the seeming goal
of the iOS' ridiculous half-assed file management, is to lock out users
out of the OS, not their own content. No one is suggesting willy-nilly
complete access to the iOS file system Windows-style. A single
"documents" folder/hierarchy should've been exposed for all user- or
third-party app created- documents, including the saving of email
attachments. Any app that can access a particular file type should be
able to. Then you could transfer files via USB (iTunes), WiFi, Dropbox,
or whatever, and open then in the compatible app of your choice. None of
this "that file 'belongs' to Netshare so I can't edit it in Docs2Go or
add it to Dropbox'' nonsense.
Instead, to simulate simple file transfer functionality you have dozens
of third-party "transfer" apps that also have to act as viewers, editors,
mail clients, etc., and now even the OS itself is back-peddling by adding
document transfer and file exporting functions.
Yeah, I know, working with files is soooo 20th-century, and iOS is the
future. Fine. I'd accept that argument if there was some improved
futuristic alternative in iOS, but what iOS essentially did was abandon
file management without offering ANY decent workable alternative, and is
slowly reintroducing file management in small ways, perhaps to deflect
embarrassment from omitting it in the first place.
When do figure Finder for iOS shows up? iOS 5? Maybe 6?
Todd Allcock
> > > now that the porn industry has declared they are not going to be
using
> > > flash, there will be even more porn available on ipads and iphones.
> >
> > I was unaware the porn industry spoke with a single voice! ;)
>
> <http://www.conceivablytech.com/1553/business/an-unexpected-apple-ally-
porn-industry-to-drop-flash/>
Typical weak journalism. The article quotes a single company, Digital
Playground, and calls them "one of the porn heavyweights in the U.S." and
doesn't mention any other companies.
>
> > >> Actually, they seem mutually exclusive. How to we get the non-
Apple
> > >> controlled content on the iPad, without a iTunes-equipped computer?
> > >
> > > almost everyone who has an iphone, ipad or ipod uses itunes. very,
very
> > > few bother with one of the alternatives.
> >
> > Agreed- therefore, the iP* requires a iTunes equipped computer for
normal
> > operation...
>
> most people have itunes so it's a non-issue.
*Sigh" It's not the "iTunes" that's important- it's the computer. iP*
devices need a computer for normal, intended, operation, and your
continued denial of that is disingenous at best.
> my point is that the ipad is not a paperweight if the user does not
> have itunes, once past the initial setup. it's not as functional, sure,
> but it's still usable.
Not with the user-experience intended by Apple, or expected by buyers.
AES
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> Not really- the "secret" to File Management for Dummies, the seeming goal
> of the iOS' ridiculous half-assed file management, is to lock out users
> out of the OS, not their own content. No one is suggesting willy-nilly
> complete access to the iOS file system Windows-style. A single
> "documents" folder/hierarchy should've been exposed for all user- or
> third-party app created- documents, including the saving of email
> attachments. Any app that can access a particular file type should be
> able to. Then you could transfer files via USB (iTunes), WiFi, Dropbox,
> or whatever, and open then in the compatible app of your choice. None of
> this "that file 'belongs' to Netshare so I can't edit it in Docs2Go or
> add it to Dropbox'' nonsense.
>
> Instead, to simulate simple file transfer functionality you have dozens
> of third-party "transfer" apps that also have to act as viewers, editors,
> mail clients, etc., and now even the OS itself is back-peddling by adding
> document transfer and file exporting functions.
>
> Yeah, I know, working with files is soooo 20th-century, and iOS is the
> future. Fine. I'd accept that argument if there was some improved
> futuristic alternative in iOS, but what iOS essentially did was abandon
> file management without offering ANY decent workable alternative, and is
> slowly reintroducing file management in small ways, perhaps to deflect
> embarrassment from omitting it in the first place.
>
> When do figure Finder for iOS shows up? iOS 5? Maybe 6?
From my previous posts (viewed by some as rants), I'm obviously in full
agreement with the above.
The only major disagreement, or uncertainty, about the current situation
is whether Apple designed these iGadgets so that they "lock users out of
their own content" (nice turn of phrase, even if a bit exaggerated) in
order to provide a _better, simpler interface_ to that content for all
the cultural sugar water users, or whether they did it in order to
maintain _a major degree of control_ over how these users can access,
use, and re-transmit the content on their gadgets -- in other words, for
primarily content-commercial reasons.
I continue to believe the latter -- but who really knows?
BreadW...@fractious.net
> BreadW...@fractious.net wrote:
>
> > > Applications? :-)
> > No. The recipient of the document must be an application and no
> > application other than the App Store app knows how to "receive"
> > app files or install them.
> And this is (with only slight exaggeration or hyerbole) a purely evil
> limitation.
I really don't think so. I find it a little bit annoying, but
I can see why they do it. I don't understand why you can't.
If you want to see the alternative, try an Android phone and
wait for the Android tablets to start to arrive.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
John McWilliams
>
> Or the audio files one is dealing with are not music at all -- they're
> seminars, talks, lectures, sound-tracks, animal sounds, bird calls,
> traffic noise recordings, innumerable other kinds of audio research
> files -- and the whole pop music vocabulary and organizational structure
> built into iTunes is not just irrelevant but totally gets in the way.
It is called i*Tunes* ! IAE, my tagging needs are modest, and as far as
music genres go, there are far too many categories in iTunes for my
needs/tastes.
>
> Sure, one can tediously modify the names, labels, categories, etc in
> iTunes to fit other situations -- but no one who's had experience with
> any really good media management and cataloging software (and there are
> several examples of such for the Mac) would ever go near iTunes for this
> function.
I don't doubt that. Curiously, what are the top examples for the Mac?
--
john mcwilliams
Wes Groleau
> Not really- the "secret" to File Management for Dummies, the seeming goal
> of the iOS' ridiculous half-assed file management, is to lock out users
> out of the OS, not their own content. No one is suggesting willy-nilly
> complete access to the iOS file system Windows-style. A single
> "documents" folder/hierarchy should've been exposed for all user- or
Can we trust Apple to also lock them out of preferences files, and to
not approve apps that depend on “unlocked” files for modifying their
behavior? And to not approve apps that crash when TextWrangler adds
a gratuitous EOL at the end of the file, or some other app silently
sticks a BOM at the beginning of a file, or Microsoft Word silently
decides that you didn't really want that file to start with a form feed,
or . . .
?
All of those events have been the causes of failures I was asked to fix
within the past five years. (Failures in the app _receiving_ the file
from the app that actually screwed it up.)
Think about it: One app trashes the file, the next app crashes,
and the haters spread the word that Apple screwed up.
I’m working with an app this year that generates HTML with illegal
nesting, i.e., the end tags are not in the reverse order of the start
tags. Sharepoint 2007, aka great-grandson of FrontPage. Who will get
the blame when a browser can’t render it?
--
Wes Groleau
Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy:
http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
Todd Allcock
"AES" <sie...@stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:siegman-44C640...@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu...
I don't- using iOS devices presumes one will use iTunes, and iTunes doesn't
"lock users out of their own content." It works just fine without
purchasing anything from the iTunes store.
I do think they try to attain a major degree of control, but that, IMO, is
more about controlling the quality of end-user experience than forcing
purchases. (I'm not saying I agree with that level of control, but I do
understand it.)
Windows Mobile is a perfect example- it has deloved a terrible reputation
for being unstable and buggy. (It IS bloated, but that's another
complaint!) In actuality, WM is pretty darn stable, but since apps are
given free reign of both the OS and hardware, it's really easy for errant
third-party apps to slow down or even crash the OS or the device hardware.
Such crashes are blamed on the platform (which, of course, deserves some of
the blame, since it doesn't elegantly handle such crashes,) but that's
really a side effect of the openness of the platform to developers.
Apple's sandboxing, restricitve SDK and app store policies protect the OS
from such errent apps, and therefore protects the iOS from the sort of
reputation WinMo has earned. Personally, I'll put up with the instability
of certain apps to get a more open ecosystem, but I wouldn't suggest my
particular wishes or preferences are the "correct" ones. Despite the
control, Apple has helped create a robust ecosystem for the iOS. I just
think hubris prevents them from admitting a mistake, so baby steps in
correcting them are taken instead of wholesale changes. The current iPad
document sharing is an example. It seems fairly obvious that Apple has
conceded that some type of third-party-accessible file sync at the OS level,
as well as the ability for apps to use documents created by other apps, but
rather than go to a "real" file manager, these iOS-particular kludges are
introduced first. I can't imagine anyone using them will argue "this is so
much easier and more intuitive than just using a Finder-type app to
open/transfer these documents." Instead we get poetic rhetoric about the
"future of computing" the dangers of accidental file deletion/modification,
and the admittedly very real shortcomings of file-centric computing. The
problem, of course, is while there are shortcomings, no one has come up with
anything better, so iOS simply dropped file managment without providing any
suitable alternative.
Todd Allcock
"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-AF1E2C...@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi...
> In article <GFGYn.3560$Zp1....@newsfe15.iad>,
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> *Sigh" It's not the "iTunes" that's important- it's the computer. iP*
>> devices need a computer for normal, intended, operation, and your
>> continued denial of that is disingenous at best.
>
> Once her iPhone was set up at the Apple Store where she bought it a year
> ago, it has never been connected to a computer.
I suppose, were I "nospam," I'd shrug off your reply with a cry of "edge
case!"
I suspect, however, your stylist is long time "dumbphone" user, and hasn't
changed her habits. Presumably, while she probably enjoys her iPhone
greatly, I'm guessing she doesn't really use the iPod functionality at all.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > As I said, my hair stylist has an iPhone 3GS, and doesn't own a computer.
> > Once her iPhone was set up at the Apple Store where she bought it a year
> > ago, it has never been connected to a computer.
>
> I suppose, were I "nospam," I'd shrug off your reply with a cry of "edge
> case!"
i don't need to suppose :) it's not as edge as you may think.
> I suspect, however, your stylist is long time "dumbphone" user, and hasn't
> changed her habits. Presumably, while she probably enjoys her iPhone
> greatly, I'm guessing she doesn't really use the iPod functionality at all.
i was in an apple store once and someone brought in an ipod to be
repaired. they gave him a new one and he said he was going to go home,
fill it with music and *mail* it to his father who couldn't be bothered
to connect it to a computer. he may not have even had a computer (i
don't remember). the music on it never changed.
i consider myself a power user and i rarely change the music content on
my devices. i have my favourite stuff on it (that's why ratings are
useful :)), and every once in a while i might make a change. i have an
older ipod where the content hasn't changed in years.
Todd Allcock
> In article <Z9KYn.3576$Zp1...@newsfe15.iad>,
> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> > As I said, my hair stylist has an iPhone 3GS, and doesn't own a
>> > computer. Once her iPhone was set up at the Apple Store where she
>> > bought it a year ago, it has never been connected to a computer.
>>
>> I suppose, were I "nospam," I'd shrug off your reply with a cry of "edge
>> case!"
>>
>> I suspect, however, your stylist is long time "dumbphone" user, and
>> hasn't changed her habits. Presumably, while she probably enjoys her
>> iPhone greatly, I'm guessing she doesn't really use the iPod
>> functionality at all.
>
> how much web browsing she does, though.
How does she get music on it? Buy it all through iTunes? Or does she have
a friend rip her CDs and load them?
As friendly as the folks at the Apple store are, would they let you bring in
a shoebox full of CDs and rip them to your new iPhone for you at time of
activation?
Paul Murray
> "Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
> news:michelle-0BDD03...@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi...
>> In article <Z9KYn.3576$Zp1...@newsfe15.iad>,
>> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>>> > As I said, my hair stylist has an iPhone 3GS, and doesn't own a
>>> > computer. Once her iPhone was set up at the Apple Store where she
>>> > bought it a year ago, it has never been connected to a computer.
>>> I suppose, were I "nospam," I'd shrug off your reply with a cry of "edge
>>> case!"
>>> I suspect, however, your stylist is long time "dumbphone" user, and
>>> hasn't changed her habits. Presumably, while she probably enjoys her
>>> iPhone greatly, I'm guessing she doesn't really use the iPod
>>> functionality at all.
>> Actually, she uses the iPod function, email, and apps a lot. I don't know
>> how much web browsing she does, though.
> How does she get music on it? Buy it all through iTunes? Or does she have
> a friend rip her CDs and load them?
Downloaded podcasts (you can download them straight to the iThing)?
Pandora/last.fm/etc...?
AES
John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Sure, one can tediously modify the names, labels, categories, etc in
> > iTunes to fit other situations -- but no one who's had experience with
> > any really good media management and cataloging software (and there are
> > several examples of such for the Mac) would ever go near iTunes for this
> > function.
>
> I don't doubt that. Curiously, what are the top examples for the Mac?
Can't necessarily name the _top_ examples -- but can name three examples
I think are very good to excellent, for their tasks and as models for
interfaces.
Leading the list by far is iView MediaPro, which originally came from an
independent firm in the UK for 10 or 15 years; I used it from day one;
cost about $100 to $150 or so. (It was sold to MS and renamed
Expressionist Media a few years ago; and has very recently been re-sold
to a UK specialist digital camera vendor, who has still to decide what
they'll do with it.)
It's an absolute model -- at least for me -- of what a general purpose
media cataloging and management app ought to be. (There are of course
many other graphics or media cataloging apps, from Apple, Adobe, and
other vendors, including large camera vendors. I tried out several of
them several decades ago; discovered IVMP; and never had any reason to
look further.)
EndNote is a bibliographic database/reference management app; I've used
it in emerging versions for at least 10, maybe 15 years. Has a few
minor things I'd like to see changed, but is generally very good.
Now Contact is an excellent address book app -- maybe not greatly
superior to Apple's Address Book, but good enough that after 10+ years'
experience with it I see no reason to convert. It has an especially
lovely feature in the form of a "QuickContact" menulet/applet/whatever
the hell it is Finder menu icon that lets you search for and pull data
out of its database without actually opening the primary Now Contact
app. Can't understand why no other database app that I know of has such
a feature .
Jon Ribbens
> In article <jHKYn.16858$f_3....@newsfe17.iad>,
> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>> > Actually, she uses the iPod function, email, and apps a lot. I don't
>> > know how much web browsing she does, though.
>>
>> How does she get music on it? Buy it all through iTunes? Or does she
>> have a friend rip her CDs and load them?
>
Ouch, she's gonna be unhappy if it ever breaks or she loses it
or it gets stolen, and she loses all her music.
nospam
<michelle-1267D6...@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > Ouch, she's gonna be unhappy if it ever breaks or she loses it or it
> > gets stolen, and she loses all her music.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, you can redownload without additional fees. I know
> that's true for apps, and think it's true for music.
apps can be downloaded repeatedly. they might let you redownload the
music once if your computer was stolen or lost in a fire, but they
won't do it regularly.
Jon Ribbens
> In article <slrni39gud.v...@snowy.squish.net>,
> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ouch, she's gonna be unhappy if it ever breaks or she loses it or it
>> gets stolen, and she loses all her music.
>
> that's true for apps, and think it's true for music.
As I understand it: apps yes, music no.
I am happy to be corrected however if that is not the case ;-)