Hacker News Reader

Comment by icey | Hacker News Reader

I don't really have a politically correct way to say this: What a horseshit maneuver by Apple.

I have been a very loyal mac user for years and love it, but I'm seriously considering going back to Linux. I am not a free software "zealot" and don't mind some closed-ness, but this is getting absolutely insane.

Enforcing which LANGUAGES can be used on a platform?!? Insane!

Edit: I've been looking at these guys:

http://www.system76.com/

(I don't work with or have any vested interest in them, but they look cool.)

I have a lap top from them. It works well.

Ubuntu will run on most laptops, including mac books, so need to go with a special vendor.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MacBook

I actually went the opposite route and installed mac os on a netbook.

http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-i...

Boycotting the Mac platform (which is pretty much free of any such absurdity) doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That's where Apple is doing things right. You should of course, shun iPhone OS devices if you feel this way.

The system76 laptops are probably generic machines from Clevo, Sager or some such with a custom badge. Alienware used to do the same thing.

I wonder if Leo Laporte is going to be right about how he thinks that will Apple eventually stop making macs so that they can focus on more closed or controlled platforms like the iPod, iPhone, and now the iPad. They seem to be pretty good at making money with the closed systems.

Maybe the next iBook will just be a foldable iPad with the same closed OS.

I predict the differences will shrink and disappear. The desktops and laptops will get touch input and iPhone apps, and the closed platforms will round out in specs and features.

Maybe someday but for now Mac sales are going up -- not down. I can't imagine they'd walk away from that market. I could see the two platforms merging in certain ways. For instance if you added a multi-touch screen to the current MacBook, retaining the keyboard/touchpad, you'd have an interesting platform. You'd have desktop multi-touch apps very similar to iPad apps but you'd also be able to use traditional OSX apps. There could be some system wide multi-touch features along the lines of what they're doing with the multi-touch trackpads already to enhance these applications.

Yes, but it's the content creators that are developing the apps and making the iPad/iPhone a more valuable platform.

Boycotting Apple's content creation tools and consequently not developing for the iPad/iPhone is one way to send a message.

I've been wondering about this a bit lately. I've so far chosen not to support the iPhone OS for the reason you mention, instead favoring Android.

However, I'm ultimately interested in serving my application to the largest number of people, and it seems clear to me that the App Store is the best way to achieve that today. So, do you cave in and develop an iPhone version? Or, do you stand by your morals, and, in turn, limit your audience?

If you're already developing for Android, stick with what you're doing and you'll soon be serving your app to a much larger market. Android growth is pretty strong: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20001788-265.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/193653/google_android_hits_ma...

If I had to guess, the iPhone and iPod Touch are seen as more successful endeavors to Apple than the Mac has been of late. So I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's iPhone policies start leaking their way onto the Mac too.

That's what I'm worried about. The instant that happens, I'm gone.

I think I'm already gone :( I am now seriously considering mowing down my iMac and MacBook and putting Linux on them. (Not that this makes a lick of difference, but it will make me feel better)

It does make a difference. Linux needs more users, both active and passive. I'm actually surprised how many people that would be the target audience for Linux have come to use OS X instead.

User interface, user interface, quality of hardware, and user interface.

"Quality of hardware" boils down to user interface... just at the hardware level.

Their UI ability is the secret of Apple's success. Everyone else treats UI and design like an afterthought.

If you believe Trefis, the iPhone makes up a little over 50% of AAPL's value as compared to ~20% from the Mac line, so anyone that thinks of it as more successful is right: http://www.trefis.com/company?hm=AAPL.trefis&hk=34d9a244...

I really hope that this ridiculousness doesn't start to bleed through - the MacBook Pro is pretty much the only laptop I've ever considered usable for development, and I don't know what I'd do if I had to abandon it...

Get a Sony Vaio Z, and install Lucid?

Yes, second Sony laptop ind the last 6 years (so i had the first one 5 years, and it's still in use without any hardware problems!). Displays are top notch, as well as the keyboards on the new one, best keyboard i've seen. Of course that's purely subjective ;)

Sadly, an IBM Selectric keyboard won't fit in a notebook ;-)

I specially loved the one that came with the 3278 terminal. And the clicky ones, like the ones that came with the 3290.

Nowadays, when on my desk, the netbook is hooked up to a Microsoft natural keyboard. I would like the Sun keyboard, but Sun won't ship it to me in Brazil and local dealers want... US$400 for it.

The hardest thing to me about ditching Mac would be that Apple is the only company capable of doing a user interface.

ALL other user interfaces by ALL other vendors suck.

For some reason, no human beings on the entire planet other than those that work at One Infinite Loop in Cupertino are capable of doing a UI.

Although historically I have always agreed with you, I dare say Microsoft is starting to figure it out. Slowly but surely. Win7 is almost a pleasant experience.

Windows 7 is usable for two reasons:

1) They removed much of the "originality" that they did from Vista.

2) They copied more stuff from Apple, and a little bit from the Linux ecosystem.

Oh... and what's their fetish with that sickening shade of teal/blue? Yuck! It looks like smurf vomit.

I doubt that Microsoft has copied anything from the Linux ecosystem. And with Linux innovations such as moving the window buttons around for no reason and upsetting their users, I don't see why they would.

Linux fans need to relax a bit and realize they're number three for a reason and work harder not complain harder.

Edid: I'm sorry, do I sound bitter? Maybe I've grown disillusioned with the difference between the reality in the trenches and fans extolling the features of product X, where X is any of Linux, Mac, Windows, iPhone, etc.

I just got my new laptop yesterday, and while some of this is surely due to the SSD or the New Laptop Smell, Windows 7 is EASILY the best experience I've ever had with a Microsoft product. The new taskbar looks wonderful, the design is up there with Apple, and everything is so freaking fast it is unbelievable.

I booted my other laptop to transfer some data over and waiting for Vista to load to the point where I could interact with Chrome was like pulling teeth.

I've started using it this week. Alt+tab becomes more and more broken with every release. There was a time when excel was the only application that didn't behave properly.

I honestly wonder what you mean by Alt-Tab being broken? Surely it does switch windows, doesn't it?

The stack doesn't work consistently.

In the old days, when you minimised something, it always went to the bottom of the stack. (Except Excel, which had a silent entry in the stack when you had more than one document open. Outlook has been bizarre for a while, too.)

In one of the NT4 service packs (I think) this changed so that if something minimised to the status bar (rather than the task bar) it worked differently. I'm not sure what Vista did, but XP was bearable.

Now there are lots of variables - different apps respond to being removed from focus differently, I've read that the number of open applications affects stack response to minimise also.

Windows used to be very friendly to rapid keyboard-only operation. You could drop things in the start menu and activate them with two keystrokes. Alt+tab was dependable. No longer.

Hmm. I changed the theme to classic mode and it seems to work like I expect it to.

This is a massive exaggeration. I went from OSX to Ubuntu and I am more productive on Ubuntu in interface terms. The dock is very silly and graphical when you have quicksilver or gnome-do. Chrome is a better browser and browser UI experience than Safari in my opinion (and lots of people like firefox and opera more). The Finder vs Nautilus differences aren't big enough really, there are pros and cons to each. Apple stuff is well designed until you want to go past just cookie cutter customizations and then the openness IS the UI because I define it to work how I want to.

The same caries over to other things. Sure the install and uninstall of applications on OSX is a great UI. But apt-get just seriously leaves it in the dust. The problem with linux was never that it had a bad UI or was too customizable. The problem with linux was actual hardware bugs in drivers, lack of office, lack of flash, lack of games. Which have mostly been addressed asides from games (which is a sore point for Apple too). UI is far too overrated over actual features.

And it's all based on a myth. Steve Jobs ringing up SUN over their looking glass and threatening with UI patents is just ridiculous. As are the claims to Apple fame with interfaces taken from Xerox.

So yes, I agree Apple are very good, possibly the best at UIs. But my points are 1) UIs aren't as massively important as people say, 2) Apple's "innovations" have been overrated 3) your statement that "no human beings on the entire planet other than those that work at One Infinite Loop in Cupertino are capable of doing a UI" is just ridiculous.

As much as I agree with the "it's not that bad" opinion, I can't understand why do you say "UI is far too overrated over actual features". No "standard user" will want to know about apt-get. They have synaptic and others. Normal users don't want to use the console at all. Command line is good for developers and power-users - and that's a minority. Majority wants to work based on recognition, not recall because they don't care enough to remember things.

I agree, that's why Ubuntu comes with the "Ubuntu Software Center" which is basically a frontend for those tools my grandma could use.

What Apple really has down about UIs is sparseness. "Exterminate features." I loathe clutter, both in real life and in technology.

When something on a mac looks like it should be able to be frobbed, dragged, etc., it usually can and in exactly the way that it seems like it should.

This is not the case on Windows, Linux, or anything else.

For me, Apple's UI advantage comes from two things:

1. It's way the hell better than Windows. No competition here. Windows is horribly clunky, and if you disagree with me, try using both for a while.

2. It has less of a tendency to plunge you into pesky little technical details than Linux. I personally don't mind fiddling with a config file every now and then, and the more recent Ubuntu versions are getting surprisingly good about this, but Linux still demands more effort to get a good, productive environment going. And Flash support still sucks.

Of the two, I prefer Linux in terms of usability. I doubt most non-technical users would agree. (Chrome, though, is just unambiguously better than Safari in every way. I use both regularly and don't want to dislike either of them.)

I can't stand the Mac UI. In every way that it's better than Windows, there's some way that it's worse. The dock is a terrible interface element and having a menu at top the of screen may have made sense when screens where 512×342 pixels but makes little sense with giant resolution screens and multiple monitors.

I'd say the all user interfaces from all vendors suck, including Apple.

There’s a reason it’s at the top of the screen, and it has nothing to do with screen resolution. Try looking up Fitt’s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fittss_law).

Essentially, the menu items are infinitely tall hit targets… no matter how fast the mouse moves towards them, one can never overshoot them vertically. Menus in Windows and most *nix environments require both horizontal and vertical precision.

Furthermore, why are you bothering with the Dock when Exposé and Spotlight (or Quicksilver, Launchbar, etc.) offer great power user alternatives?

Personally, I still can’t stand how Windows and Linux make no distinction between applications and windows.

> There’s a reason it’s at the top of the screen, and it has nothing to do with screen resolution.

I understand the original reason for it. However, hitting the menu is an extremely large distance from what you might be working on now. I'm typing this on a multi-monitor machine -- this app is totally self-contained on one monitor. Why must I move my mouse across two monitors just use this app's menu?

> Personally, I still can’t stand how Windows and Linux make no distinction between applications and windows.

I can't stand how you can close all windows on a Mac and still have the process around with the only indication being a slightly difference in the menu bar. Amazingly confusing.

Now this may be personal preference but it still shows that the Mac GUI isn't some ultimate model of perfection that everyone agrees on.

It's only true that you can't overshoot them if your trajectory is perfectly vertical. With a diagonal trajectory (which is usually the case), you can still overshoot the item you were aiming for.

Also, Fitts' Law says that the time to select a target is proportional to the distance and the size of the target. Putting the menu on the edge of the screen makes the effective size of the targets bigger, but in some cases it also means that they are much further away.

As I type this, the menu bar is about 4x further away than the top of my browser window.

"Essentially, the menu items are infinitely tall hit targets…"

And they violated that rule in the dock, unless that's been fixed in the last couple of versions.

    ALL other user interfaces by ALL other vendors suck.

I don't understand your enthusiasm for aqua (I've got a mac) but I understand what you're sayin in a general sense because I came to a similar conclusion about ten years ago.

If this is a big thing for you, I'd recommend the path I took after Be folded. Accept that complex user interfaces have bad tradeoffs (platform dependence, inflexibility). Find a full-screen tty you like (I use iterm because with apple+key + enter it goes full screen and gets rid of aqua) and return to living in the habitat of your ancestors!

A few things are inherently visual: paint programs, 3d games and movie editing. Everything that is not can be done effectively on the console. These interactions are often far superior to GUIs.

There's a learning curve. But once you're over it you'll have enormous power at your disposal and won't ever get locked in again.

Two things make this far easier than it has been previously:

1) Python. The standard library contains everything you'd want to do to push a system around. You can hammer out powerful tools in python in a casual manner and at a speed that has not been available to mere mortals before. You can get it on a variety of platforms.

2) Web browsesr. It's now easy to get high-quality web browsers on any platform you'd want to use. Where you do need to produce a GUI, you can knock up a trim webapp with html and forms.

> The hardest thing to me about ditching Mac would be that Apple is the only company capable of doing a user interface.

Some systems have a CLUE (Command Line User Environment).

Boycotting the Mac platform (which is pretty much free of any such absurdity)

For now.

That's the thing about Apple's capricious, passive-aggressive contract language... you have no idea, and no way to even guess, if your business model will be the next one they target for termination.

I have a Starling Netbook from system76. Nothing to write home about, but I've had few, if any real problems with it.

It's a little flimsy, physically.

And I am a proud free software zealot, so I moved it to debian.

Hmm... if it's flimsy I probably wouldn't like it. One thing I don't like about Apple hardware is how you have to treat it like a family heirloom or it turns into a scratched up mess. Anything less hardy than that would be unusable.

Toughbooks are also promising, but they're light on the specs... could someone please make a durable and well-specced laptop?

IBM?

IBM laptops aren't anymore - bought by Lenovo a few years ago.

I wasn't particularly gentle with my MacBook Pro and it never got scratched or damaged.

I moved to a Thinkpad (from a Powerbook) two years ago and couldn't be happier. Ubuntu just works and the hardware feels more solid that the Powerbook did.

That's strange, because I also have a System76 Starling and it seems very sturdy to me. I even dropped it once and it was none the worse for wear. It's been a very hardy and well-functioning machine for me.

> I am not a free software "zealot" and don't mind some closed-ness

Maybe we were not that zealot after all when we free software "zealot" said that proprietary software allow their owners to treat their users badly and that eventually, this happens to every proprietary software. Just saying. It amazes me how surprised users of proprietary software are every time they get screwed by their masters even though this has been happening for the last 30 years.

There are products and there are platforms.

Products are OK to be proprietary as long as the value provided is top-notch. Sorry, but I don't see profesional designers using Gimp over Photoshop.

Relying on a platform for your existence is a different story. But as a business you need alliances with other businesses, and not just in software. And everybody can pull the plug on you, that's why reputation matters and in many cases it's all you need.

About free software, programmers need to eat too. Myself I use open-source everywhere, but for the last 7 years I've been doing consultancy work (turn-key apps that are never released in any form or web services that put a lock on your data ... the worst kind of closed systems). And until you'll teach me a business model that would empower me to work on "free software" while providing for my family, then I'll keep doing it.

Until then it's only fair I get paid for my work, that's why I consider the free software philosophy as extremist bullshit.

lets see theres training, and consulting, theres offer the free version, and charge for a more robust paid version, theres pay for customization and don't forget ads. There are many ways to have a business model around "free software". Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software".

> Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software".

That's a fallacy.

The majority of open-source sponsors are selling closed systems or services to sponsor their "free software" involvement. Google doesn't have a business model around "free software". Neither does IBM or Sun.

I'm also not Mozilla and my apps would probably never get in front of 40% of all Internet users. Even if I'm that lucky, it's probably not going to be a desktop app that's used to search for stuff.

To get paid for customizations, your software also has to be really popular for businesses (consumers don't pay for that, they either endure it or search for something better).

Did I mentioned that I don't live in Silicon Valley nor in Cambridge, but in an Eastern European country? So training is off.

I already mentioned consulting, but then I would be a hypocrite if I promoted the free software ideology while working on the worst kind of closed software, wouldn't I?

Anything else?

> Did I mentioned that I don't live in Silicon Valley nor in Cambridge, but in an Eastern European country? So training is off.

Maybe you should have a look at this again... I've been on a trip to Romania for training (about architecture of some specific piece of OSS) at some point. As long as you can provide good training, it could work for you too.

> > Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software".

> That's a fallacy.

> The majority of open-source sponsors are selling closed systems or services to sponsor their "free software" involvement.

Red Hat, Canonical and a large chunk of IBM GS wouldn't be able to sell those services with proprietary products - the OSS licensing of various Linux OSs, Apache, etc. are the basis for them being able to have an audience to sell their services.

I agree with you re: Google. They're not a service business and could have written their own OS or used a proprietary one and not affect revenue.

I agree with you re: Google. They're not a service business and could have written their own OS or used a proprietary one and not affect revenue.

Not sure what licensing fees would have done to their overhead costs in the early days.

Does Canonical make a profit? A business model that loses money isn't really all that valid.

And the software that makes Google their money is proprietary, unless you can show me the link to the AdWords server source.

Phusion (makers of Ruby Enterprise Edition and Phusion Passenger) definitely make a profit.

I think they basically just do it through consulting + a little support and training. (See http://phusion.nl/services). But since they wrote Passenger and REE, I'm sure they can command a very high rate.

My entire business (and livelihood) is centered on configuring and adapting free software to fit the needs of businesses. I contribute along the way because what one person needs, likely many need.

Free software is an infrastructure. I drive on it daily delivering value and getting paid.

You're wrong: every decent product is a platform. Photoshop and GIMP have plugins developed on top of them, and professional designers are very much reliant on "photoshop the platform" for their existence.

Thank you, I agree completely and you've said it much better than I could have.

This is human nature, it's not related to source openness. Open source would just allow you to start over after you have been treated badly if you have the needed development skills (hello Mr. Drepper).

It's also worth noting that the users aren't getting screwed at all by Apple, only the developers and only a small fraction of them.

I don't get it. You don't have to "start over" you continue from where you left off. Only some members of the community need development skills.

Secondly, users are harmed by these actions as there will be fewer developers making apps for them, plus, Apple are potentially stifling innovation.

It's on purpose. Apple willfully sacrifices innovation for control and UX. Users accept it for UX.

It's almost like refusing to accept patches that are written in anything but vanilla C. It's almost like they are claiming if you can't at least code in C you probably aren't smart enough to submit patches anyway.

You do realize that your decision is purely based on feeling and irrational? NEVER make decisions when you are emotional unless it's a life and death matter and you must act immediately.

Well, you're on the best way of becoming a "free software zealot". See, free software zealots by and large are what they are because they invested a ton of time and effort in some platform only to have that destroyed by a stupid or greedy management decision.

Yeah, I really thought all the hysteria about how Apple will crush small children's hopes and dreams by distributing a closed platform that does not allow tinkering was off base until now. This has much more the flavor of intent to put a stranglehold on the device above and beyond handicapping their competitors.

With much deliberation, I had got to where I could accept the ipad--window on the future of computing--being a walled (and barbed-wired, and guarded) garden. I was planning to get a 3G iPad if I have any money left after taxes, and a WiFi one for my wife soon. But this... I think this is farther than I'm willing to go. And even if they were to back down on this requirement (as they did on the original NDA)... I'm rambling, but I feel hurt by this.

Just make a webapp :/ all the freedom you need.

How well does that work for gaming? I like playing around with Unity3D; I have a hard time thinking that HTML5 is going to give the same experience.

Actually...

http://learningwebgl.com/blog/

Freedom to have no access to the camera or microphone, for example?

It'll get there... You can already have access to the multi-touch stuff via javascript.

idk, I've never thought the appstore was anything but a stop gap personally, and developing for it a crazy risk.

It won't get there before the iPhone is obsolete. You really think that web apps are ever going to get access the microphone or the camera?

Also, a stop gap? I think there's an app for that.

>> "You really think that web apps are ever going to get access the microphone or the camera?"

Definitely, if other phones or devices have such capabilities, and a killer webapp comes out that uses them.

If I was Apple I'd just shut the App store down to get rid of all the ungrateful developers. Sorry, but it's their show. They get to decide if you can play, and what the rules are. If you don't like it, don't play with them.

"Mobile" is what will become obsolete. These new devices are handheld computers pretending to be phones. Someday they will embrace this reality, and inherit all of the progress that's already played out on PCs/laptops - browsers, flash, etc.

Handheld computers (with and without a phone) have been around forever. Apple has changed the game from that open reality to this and have been quite successful with it. You have it backwards.

Hand held computers capable of rendering standard web pages have not been around for very long, unless I'm overlooking something.

Moore's law. Even desktop computers capable of rendering today's web pages haven't been around forever. But a web browser is just an app -- and all platforms have them now. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Seems like Apple thinks the same restriction applies. If you use parenscript or coffeescript (or GWT) to generate your JavaScript, you are technically violating the contract you signed with Apple.

Of course, if you didn't sign that, then you can do whatever you want.

If they started actively censoring/blocking websites that they determine haven't written javascript by hand, then that would be theonion.com territory (And the end of their sales) :)

> then that would be theonion.com territory

As opposed to where they are right now? Enforcing what higher level language you write in before it gets compiled down to machine code?

The web = open

Native apps that run directly on their hardware = closed - you play by their rules or not at all.

shrug pretty clear difference IMHO.

Yup, freedom to have: no access to hardware, no ability to do anything computationally intensive, no filesystem access, no storage, no disconnected access, ...

There is storage--and the ability to run offline--thanks to HTML5, and the same web apps will work the same (more-or-less) on Android and webOS (Palm) phones. You get a SQL db (up to 5MB), plus a persistent key-value store and a window-local "session" key-value store that isn't persistent.

But yeah, no camera/GPS/microphone/etc.

You can now get location from Javascript APIs in the safari browser following the iPhone 3.0 release.

http://blog.bemoko.com/2009/06/17/iphone-30-geolocation-java...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com