WWDC 2010 Thread - Let's talk some APPLE!!!

[photon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

And here's what Apple actually has written on the page in plain sight:

They may have just added that too, since it wasn't mentioned in the article and it's also not on the Developer version of that page.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I think this guy is just reaching. Either that, or he's trying to balance out all the press from yesterday's iPhone announcement so that he doesn't get called a fanboy (all non-Apple tech sites do this).

I don't think so, it's a legitimate complaint and one I've had with Apple long before this incident.

[FanIn80]

Oh neat, I didn't realize there were more pages to click on. I thought it was just some videos or whatever. The entire page is pretty much blank except for some text explaining what it is. The page itself doesn't even load properly for me in FF.

Edit: Hmm. Now everything works. When I went to the site earlier, it was nothing but a blank white page (with the Apple headers on top) and the text that I quoted. The text was in grey so it was obvious there was supposed to be some kind of background element or something... I just assumed it wasn't loading for the same reason a lot of the HTML5 stuff doesn't work in FF. Looks like they were still finalizing some of the content on the page.

...and now I see what they mean by that popup message. It comes up when you try to click on a video or whatever. I don't care about that really, it just pissed me off that I kept getting a half-rendered page and couldn't see the same thing the guy writing the article was talking about.

Anyway, putting that aside, I think people need to remember that Google sells advertising. They need their adds to show up on every platform on the planet, which is why they include everybody's products when they do something. Apple is under no obligation to promote someone else's product, and doing so can actually hamper their ability to make money... whereas Google has to promote everyone's products, as it's the only way they make money.

I still haven't figured out those Mozilla guys yet, though. I don't know which angle they're playing, but nobody stays in the "free browser" game this long without getting something back out of it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Now, you can download a special version of Firefox with some extra plugins installed that will allow you to view the videos. Only the ones encoded with WebM (a Google property), though... not the industry standard h.264 versions.

WebM isn't a Google property, it's free and open. The VP8 codec was something Google purchased, but it's also free and open.

H.264 is industry standard but it's also private and must be licensed, so you can't include a H.264 decoder in your software unless you get a license from MPEG-LA, meaning MPEG-LA has control over it, it's not free and open.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Edit: Someone should really create a thread about h.264 vs WebM. I'm interested in figuring out why Google thinks we need a whole new video codec. How much of this is really just about not siding with Apple on something?

It's got nothing to do with siding with Apple, it's about free and open software which H.264 is not.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

At which point do the end-users themselves wind up paying the price for these companies not being able to work together on something? I'm not creating it, though. I don't have time to piss around with that kind of drama anymore.

Now you kind of get it.. the whole point of free and open software is to avoid this kind of thing, because otherwise you have companies and licensing bodies having control over who can and can't use a codec.

But that's the nature of business, MPEG-LA wants to protect their own interests and their own revenue streams and don't care how it impacts users as long as every time you watch an H.264 video they get their cut of the pie.

The whole point of WebM and VP8 is to have something completely open that no one has to pay to use, if I want to write a web browser I can make one that plays WebM media without having to get a license or restrict the license of the software I make.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by photon

The whole point of WebM and VP8 is to have something completely open that no one has to pay to use, if I want to write a web browser I can make one that plays WebM media without having to get a license or restrict the license of the software I make.

That logic all goes out the window with me, because Google owns VP8. Google's only interest in an open web is screen space for advertising. What happens in 5 years, when they change the license agreement on their codec and everyone is on the hook?

It's already started with Google re-writing the WebM license to specifically protect Google from patent infringement, should the open-source aspect go away.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a free and open web. Unfortunately, nothing on this planet is truly free and someone always owns something. I would much rather just pay a fee upfront for a guaranteed service, than get something for free now with the hidden promise of strings later. I'm not saying this will or will not happen, it's just the way I look at things. I trust an open exchange of payment with a guaranteed service agreement far more than a "click here for free" future version of the Web.

This is a really good topic, though. This Google vs Apple thing has a lot of layers to it.

[Russic]

Awesome phone. Love the display and the 720p video, but beyond that I don't feel the urgency to upgrade that I did with my 3g. Somebody like Kermitology who still has a 3g will be floating in a sea of delight when he gets it, but I'm not really feeling the need to upgrade from a 3gs. I think I can comfortably wait another year for the iPhone 5. I will admit though, having a 720p camera knowing my kid is going to be crawling and walking in the next 5 months or so is pretty attractive. My wife's Bell contract is up right away, so I'm going to steer her in this direction. Maybe she'll even not care and swap with me

Can you imagine what the iPad is going to be like next year with the retina displays? It's already so nice I can't even imagine it getting more clear.

I'm not really sold on the front facing camera at all. I've had the ability to video chat for a few years now and I'd say I've probably used it 3 or 4 times in total. If I was a big traveler perhaps I'd use it to stay in touch with the family, but then I'd probably just use a laptop for that.

Overall I'm not overly impressed, but that's just because I don't feel those are features I really need. My iPad has taken a huge chunk of usage away from my iPhone. My transit rides each day are dominated by that, so my iPhone is a bit of a second fiddle. When I want a beautiful display to watch something, I'll go that direction. Like I said though, for somebody that is going from a 3g the difference will be incredible.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Don't forget, Rogers let people with a 3G upgrade to the 3GS last year when it came out. I don't see why they won't this time around, too.

It was a pretty sweet deal. I upgraded from 3G to 3GS for $199, and then sold my used 3G for $400.

I wouldn't say Rogers let people upgrade. I'd say if you managed to get in touch with the right customer service rep you had a chance. I had to jump through some hoops and mess with the system a little, and even then it was a close call.

If you're going to try and go from a 3gs --> 4 the only thing I can recommend is be super kind and courteous to the CSR's.

[Yeah_Baby]

For me, another 3G user, the fact that iOS 4 won't have multitasking on my current unit is reason enough to upgrade.

I'm glad we don't get them to July, August is my two year mark on my current contract.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Apple is under no obligation to promote someone else's product, and doing so can actually hamper their ability to make money... whereas Google has to promote everyone's products, as it's the only way they make money.

But that's not the point of the article. No one says Apple is obligated to promote someone else's product. It's saying the showcase is a marketing stunt (probably to make more people download Safari). Which is fine, no one says marketing stunts are illegal or immoral, it's just naming it for what it is. And when contrasted with the standards talk from elsewhere in Apple, it's intellectually dishonest.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I still haven't figured out those Mozilla guys yet, though. I don't know which angle they're playing, but nobody stays in the "free browser" game this long without getting something back out of it.

Not everyone is after money, some people want to make a positive contribution while not making money. The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization, and they want to create free software that benefits everyone while being free and open.

The Mozilla Corporation that actually makes Firefox is a taxable for profit corporation that's wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation, and all profits are invested back into the Mozilla project.

[mykalberta]

Has anyone done the Hardware Upgrade with Rogers - any thoughts on if I might be accepted and what it might cost?

Currently I am 18 months done through a 3 year contract with a Moto Red Razr phone.

The new iphone keeps calling to me so I think I might pull the trigger.

[Temporary_User]

The issue isn't with a browser company advertising for a different company that creates browsers. It's about misleading consumers into believing that they need to get X browser in order to view new content. Which in many cases is simply not the case.
Stating that the page has been optimized for Safari and in some cases may not work on another browser would be a better way of going about this situation.

If we end up getting into a heavy browser war I will be pissed.
Think about Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla and Google all paying companies to not allow competition browser from viewing their sites.
If I have to open chrome to search google. Mozilla to play flash games/content. Safari for videos, and well I hope I never have to open IE again.

Also Fanin80, don't quote me on this, but I've heard that Mozilla makes their money simply by including google (and other search engines) search bar in the toolbar section. Every time someone searches using that bar, the search engine notes that and Mozilla gets money for that.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Russic

I wouldn't say Rogers let people upgrade. I'd say if you managed to get in touch with the right customer service rep you had a chance. I had to jump through some hoops and mess with the system a little, and even then it was a close call.

If you're going to try and go from a 3gs --> 4 the only thing I can recommend is be super kind and courteous to the CSR's.

If I remember correctly, the only condition they had was a $100 monthly spend. I'm pretty sure they ended up even lifting that condition too.

I could be wrong, but it was a pretty simple process for me. I was on the phone at 8AM the morning the 3GS launched, and was all set for a big argument... but when I got through to someone and asked for the upgrade, they just said "let me check your account..." followed by "no worries, it looks like you qualify for the fully subsidized price of $199 or $299, which one would you like?"

[Yeah_Baby]

18 months might require some work. I believe upgrade is in year 2, ie 24 months.

[algernon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Has anyone done the Hardware Upgrade with Rogers - any thoughts on if I might be accepted and what it might cost?

Currently I am 18 months done through a 3 year contract with a Moto Red Razr phone.

The new iphone keeps calling to me so I think I might pull the trigger.

I was told by a friendly apple store employee that Rogers usually waits until the 2 year mark (since last HUP) to upgraaayyed you. If you spend lots of money a month, you may be able to wriggle that down.

I am thinking I should be able to get the "4" on upgrade, in mid July, as that's when I got my 3G, two years ago. I think they are going to want a new 3 year contract from me though.

Speaking of which, I just heard a new podcast about smartphones from I, Cringley.

Average revenue per mobile subscriber line is now falling for all U.S. carriers. There is too much competition, we’ve all got enough ringtones, and those $1,000 teenage texting bills have become a thing of the past. The only way the mobile carriers can get more money from us is to get us into data plans, which involve a surcharge — for now.
And that’s the point. A mobile phone has a life expectancy of 18 months. Two hardware generations from now — three years — all phones will be smartphones. But the risk in this natural evolution for the carriers is that those smartphones will come without associated data plans and their extra revenue. So AT&T (soon to be followed by Verizon) wants to lock us in to a particular revenue model. They want to force an unnatural evolution by selling us data plans while they still can and then keeping us on those data plans past the point where they’ll make sense.
Network capacity is an issue here, but not the major one.
The endgame is all-IP everywhere with no particular differentiation between data types. But until that happens, AT&T wants to get some extra scratch from us for something that — like long-distance is now — they’ll eventually be giving away for free.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

If I remember correctly, the only condition they had was a $100 monthly spend. I'm pretty sure they ended up even lifting that condition too.

I could be wrong, but it was a pretty simple process for me. I was on the phone at 8AM the morning the 3GS launched, and was all set for a big argument... but when I got through to someone and asked for the upgrade, they just said "let me check your account..." followed by "no worries, it looks like you qualify for the fully subsidized price of $199 or $299, which one would you like?"

Ah yes, you are correct about the $100/month. My issue (and I would say many others as well) is that my bill is around $80/month. The workaround I mentioned was to dump $400 into my account so I averaged out to $100/month (the surplus would then be used to purchase the phone and cover me for a few months). It took a few days to process the payment, so i had to call back. I got a different CSR who laughed at me and congratulated me on a pretty good idea, but it wouldn't work. Only after I gave him the name of the rep I used prior did he give in.

[Yeah_Baby]

Good thing you got his name.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Russic

Awesome phone. Love the display and the 720p video, but beyond that I don't feel the urgency to upgrade that I did with my 3g. Somebody like Kermitology who still has a 3g will be floating in a sea of delight when he gets it, but I'm not really feeling the need to upgrade from a 3gs. I think I can comfortably wait another year for the iPhone 5. I will admit though, having a 720p camera knowing my kid is going to be crawling and walking in the next 5 months or so is pretty attractive. My wife's Bell contract is up right away, so I'm going to steer her in this direction. Maybe she'll even not care and swap with me

Can you imagine what the iPad is going to be like next year with the retina displays? It's already so nice I can't even imagine it getting more clear.

First of all.. it's "kermitology" not "Kermitology"

Secondly..

These are the same words that I remember thinking when I looked at the 3GS. I didn't see what it was going to do for me that my 3G didn't have.

But the display, battery and processor performance could be major improvements.

I just remember what happened when I put 3.0 on my 3G and at some point my performance on the device just went straight to hell. It was like Apple planned to kick me in the nuts for staying with the 3G.

Then again, the last iPhone I BOUGHT was the original one.

Lastly..

This is why I didn't rush out to get the iPad. There are too many improvements that can be made on it within the first year, that early adoption just didn't seem like the right choice.

[jeremywilhelm]

So, I think I missed this. 4.0 will work properly on the 3Gs?

[Russic]

Originally Posted by kermitology

First of all.. it's "kermitology" not "Kermitology"

Secondly..

These are the same words that I remember thinking when I looked at the 3GS. I didn't see what it was going to do for me that my 3G didn't have.

But the display, battery and processor performance could be major improvements.

I just remember what happened when I put 3.0 on my 3G and at some point my performance on the device just went straight to hell. It was like Apple planned to kick me in the nuts for staying with the 3G.

Then again, the last iPhone I BOUGHT was the original one.

Lastly..

This is why I didn't rush out to get the iPad. There are too many improvements that can be made on it within the first year, that early adoption just didn't seem like the right choice.

You're just so damn important I can't imagine not capitalizing your name.

Ultimately it does boil down to what's important to you as a user. For me the 3GS was attractive because I had a kid coming and didn't want to buy a video camera, I was big on using the map applications and wanted the compass and the user experience of a slow-ish phone was starting to get to me.

Originally Posted by jeremywilhelm

So, I think I missed this. 4.0 will work properly on the 3Gs?

Yes, but not the 3g.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

That logic all goes out the window with me, because Google owns VP8. Google's only interest in an open web is screen space for advertising. What happens in 5 years, when they change the license agreement on their codec and everyone is on the hook?

They can't, they've granted an open license as well as irrevocable patent protection. They could release a new codec with difference license terms, but the old one would still be under the terms it was released under so it would just continue as an open-source project.

Lots of people take this free open software thing seriously, Google is one of them. Not everyone is cavalier about it.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

It's already started with Google re-writing the WebM license to specifically protect Google from patent infringement, should the open-source aspect go away.

That protects everyone else too though, since Google's granted an irrevocable patent grant doesn't it? Or what precisely are you referring to?

EDIT:

I decided to look this up:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/...s-webm-license

Looks like it's just for license compatibility and prevent license proliferation.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a free and open web. Unfortunately, nothing on this planet is truly free and someone always owns something.

That's not true, that's the whole point of free open software is no one owns it. If in 5 years Google abandons WebM it doesn't matter since anyone else can keep going with it. Ultimately no one can control the fate of open free software by force.

That has it's own disadvantages (fracturing into a million forks), but no one controls it by fiat.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I would much rather just pay a fee upfront for a guaranteed service

And that's fine, the problem I have with that is that if it's not open and free it's not mine. I can buy a video online, but if the provider turns off their DRM servers or the video codec licensing body revokes the license, I can't watch it anymore.

Again nothing wrong with that, just some people don't like it and would rather have free open software involved so that even in the worse case scenario I can still watch my video or run my app or whatever.

Personally I find the idea that a company can reach into my home and into my devices and alter or disable or delete my devices and my content bad.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

than get something for free now with the hidden promise of strings later.

The idea of free open software has been around a lot longer than us and has yet to fall to this hidden promise of strings idea. The licenses prevent it.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I trust an open exchange of payment with a guaranteed service agreement far more than a "click here for free" future version of the Web.

I guess one question is who's actually changed their license agreements for their own self serving purposes?

Again nothing wrong with a closed system where one doesn't own anything and the vendor has ultimate control over everything, but not everyone wants to be locked into that.

Kind of like how if you want to write software that uses the GIF format you are supposed to pay a license fee (and they could increase that fee to $1 million), but an open format like JPEG2000 that can't happen, so while you could create a rich person's web that only uses expensive GIFs and expensive browsers, that's impossible to do with JPEG2000.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

This is a really good topic, though. This Google vs Apple thing has a lot of layers to it.

It's far older than Apple vs. Google too.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I just remember what happened when I put 3.0 on my 3G and at some point my performance on the device just went straight to hell. It was like Apple planned to kick me in the nuts for staying with the 3G.

Ugh I know.

[photon]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I just remember what happened when I put 3.0 on my 3G and at some point my performance on the device just went straight to hell. It was like Apple planned to kick me in the nuts for staying with the 3G.

Lol yup, but that's what makes this phone an almost no-hesitation upgrade for me; I play with the iPad and how fast it is, and that's going to be how fast my phone will be with the iPhone 4! Faster, the screen is a lower resolution!