Posts by Mark .

Amazon is best hope of a viable alternative to iPad

Re: Which is probably why you are not a developer

"What about that nail-biting wait after making anything - if the customer doesn't approve of it."

Most people have more than one potential customer. The whole problem here is placing your dependency not on other companies (which is fair enough), but solely on one company, Apple.

Peter H. Coffin: You get an even huger market with Nokia and Android (each), together with mature and stable SDK, luxurious developer support, and delivery and payment mechanisms part of the package.

ratfox: By this logic, no one would write anything for Windows. Anyhow, debugging isn't a problem - with Nokia, I can remote test my app for free on any Nokia device. Apple have something like this too, right?

"since it has very few competitors."

For what? When it comes to mobile devices that can access the Internet and run apps, there are loads, including those that sell more. Everything from phones to other handheld devices to netbooks can do this - and were long before the Ipad came about.

What exactly is it that few can compete with?

"iPad's lengthy headstart"

Headstart for what? We've had phones for years, netbooks since 2007. Handheld devices like even Apple's own Ipod Touch, and devices from Nokia and Archos were also around earlier.

"The Motorola Xoom is just about the only product in the iPad's category that is actually on sale for comparison"

Aha, now we have it. It's the trick of shrinking the market down to look at only devices almost exactly identical. You might as well say that Apple have 100% market share of Ipads! But let's spin it around: Nothing can rival the Motorola Xoom, and the Ipad is just about the only product in the Xoom's category that is actually on sale for comparison. The flaw in this argument is that you don't have to have a device _exactly_ the same, to do the things people are interested in.

It's like creating a whole new arbitrary category for built-in-one computers that have a fruit logo on them, and then saying that Apple are the market leader.

(Also ironic the implied derision of devices not on sale - when it's the Ipad that's been receiving hype long before its release.)

But even if we do look at the ill-defined "tablet" market, and wrongly exclude smaller tablets like smartphones, Apple are still losing market share. Predictions show that they will massively lose market share further in future. They're a sinking ship, right? That's what people say about Nokia losing market share (despite being number one and with increasing sales), after all.

Asus to take fight to tablets with cheap Google netbook

Fight?

I don't understand this made-up netbooks versus "tablets" war. They're both the same kind of thing. We don't divide the phone market into whether they have a physical keyboard or not (or indeed, whether they have a touchscreen). You might as well separate devices into whether they have a webcam or not.

Trying to make it into some kind of war makes no sense either - there's nothing stopping companies producing both netbooks and "tablets", so it's not like one winning means other companies losing.

If they're releasing a dirt cheap netbook, I suspect they're setting their sights on other netbooks just as much as "tablets" (possibly more so, since "tablets" are often more expensive). Oh, and you can already get Android netbooks.

"This time round, thanks to smartphones, ordinary buyers aren't so fazed by non-Microsoft operating systems."

That doesn't make sense either - smartphones (and phones in general) were around, and popular, back then, and years earlier too.

It's not clear to me why Linux on netbooks lost out. But I don't think it's a software issue, as netbooks were sold, like "tablets", as simply "Internet and app" devices, not full PCs. Explanations include:

* People confused by Linux. It's not clear to me why this should be the case (Ubuntu is pretty good these days), but possibly there were still problems. Cut-down operating systems like Android have less complexity to them.

* Some of us do want Windows you know - and we still do. These people didn't want Linux netbooks, but they still don't want them, and won't get a phone-OS based "tablet" or netbook either.

* Marketing muscle from Microsoft - along with media hype. Linux has no company pushing for it. Android and IOS have Google and Apple respectively - along with the disproportionate amount of hype that they get in the media, which Linux never got.

@Leona A: The netbook is the small cheap computer. How is it not? No, it's not as powerful as a full blown desktop, but that's an unreasonable expectation. Plus ultra-portable laptops are these days small and cheap too, but very powerful, so why don't they count either?

Unless you mean really cheap, as in sub-£100. But I'm not sure that people have ever claimed this was coming? (And if you're going to look at historical prices, e.g., the price of some of the cheap 8-bits, do remember to take inflation into account.)

Vodafone, Three fall under 'magical' iPad 2 spell

Hasn't it been released already?

I mean, surely, what with the endless stories, I thought it had already been released?

It's hard to tell actual news from vaporware when Apple stories are concerned.

Asus Eee Pad Slider

Tablets and netbooks should be considered the same market

And this is exactly why separating "tablets" and "netbooks" into different markets makes no sense (other than to make Apple look better than they are).

It was obvious that we'd get devices like this - they run Android and have a touchscreen, but also have a physical keyboard, and can be positioned with the screen angled like a netbook.

With Windows 8, I suspect we'll also see more touchscreen netbooks (I believe some do already exist). I also *hope* we'll have some netbooks that finally give a higher resolution (more than 600 depth) - possibly with a physically taller screen, but even at the same size, a higher resolution would be good.

And just to add more to the netbook/tablet confusion, you can already get Android netbooks.

Nor is it clear why ARM versus Intel makes a difference. Android runs on x86; and there's no reason why you couldn't have an Intel Atom tablet.

Apple to sell 107m iPads in 2016

Ignores netbooks, smartphones

As I just posted in the article about the Android tablet-with-keyboard, separating tablets from netbooks makes no sense. How do Apple's numbers look if we look at the true picture of portable computing devices?

And it's also not clear why we don't include smartphones, which are handheld touchscreen computers. Nokia beat them hands down, and they're also outnumbered by the various Android manufacturers.

If you're going to pick an arbitrary market, why not just go one further and say "Apple are the number one seller of Ipads"?

"Smart phones only became viable mp3 players well after Apple introduced the first smart phone that was actually usable."

Funny, I was playing mp3s on a bog standard cheap _feature_ phone - which I used, btw - long before Apple came along. And a device that couldn't even multitask or copy/paste doesn't count as a smartphone, let alone a useable one.

And I don't give me that stuff about the Ipod being usable. You can only use if through the appalling Itunes. When I wanted to play videos from another Ipod, I found the filenames all scrambled. With a player like the Sandisk Sansa, you just plug it in, and it Just Works.

I also get a UI, unlike the more expensive Ipod Shuffle.

Apple's Market Share Falling! Doom and gloom!

For years, Nokia's smartphone market share has fallen, yet they've still (a) remained number one, and (b) had an overall increase in sales (the increase despite falling market share is due to the market overall growing in size).

Yet instead of glorious articles about how they're number one, or selling hundreds of millions, instead we just get doom and gloom, often quite offensively so, about how they're therefore a failure etc.

Here we have Apple being number one, sales increasing, yet market share is falling. Sound familiar?

Yet instead, this gets portrayed in a positive fashion. Sorry, you can't have it both ways, so I'm doing it: "Look how bad Apple are doing, their market share is falling, other companies are therefore better, Apple need to stop making bad decisions otherwise they'll end up 'failing'."

Microsoft releases IE9 for chip happy Windows world

XP

"they even describe dumping nearly 50% of their user base as a selling point."

XP users can still use IE 8.

And Vista came out in, what, early 2007? I'm not sure that a requirement of a 4 year old OS is that shocking.

iPad slaps Acer, pumps Dell's number two PC maker rank

This makes no sense; if anything, phones and laptops are a more likely cause

1. Where is the evidence that the Ipad is responsible? Have netbook numbers in total fallen? Also note that correlation is not causation. If it is due to other products (and not simply market saturation), I would suspect that the continued improvement in power of smartphones from Nokia and other companies is a far bigger factor. Phones sell way more than the Ipad or any tablet. Speaking from personal experience: although I do now have a netbook, I bought it much later than I would have normally, due to my Nokia phone being good enough for most times when I'm travelling. There's also the point that most people have a need for a phone (hence buying a netbook is an additional cost). With tablets, it's a choice of a tablet or netbook - why would the device with less features at a higher cost win?

ElReg!comments!Pierre makes a good point also about competition from ultra-portable laptops. What was so special about the first netbooks in 2007 was not just their size, but their low cost. At that time, you had to pay a premium to get a small laptop. Now you can get small low cost laptops much more powerful than netbooks (typically 11", versus 10" or less for netbooks - personally I went for the smaller netbook, but I can see that many people would find an 11" a better choice). Have laptop numbers fallen?

2. And why is being third place bad? When Apple reach third place in a market, we get a fanfare of articles about how wonderful they are.

3. Note how these companies are selling millions per quarter. But half a million of a brand new release of a product that's received loads of coverage in the media is impressive?

I agree with the comments. It's sad that even articles that have nothing to do with Apple, still have to have an obligtary mention. It's like product placement.

Giles Jones: I can take notes on a netbook. What's the point in spending more on a tablet, simply to turn it back into being like a netbook? And recording audio is much slower to skim through to find a particular part. Not to mention being useless for when the lecturer writes down material.

tommy060289: "The truth is, net books are crap, slow and underpowered"

And how powerful is the Ipad? When people say netbooks are underpowered and slow, they're being compared to full laptop PCs. I wasn't aware tablets were any better - worse, in fact.

"On the other hand, I have a decent laptop for serious work and I take my iPad round with me at university as it is much easier to carry round then any laptop"

Oh I see - so your wonderful Ipad isn't up to the job, and you need a laptop for any serious work. So why not have a netbook and a laptop?

Sure, there are some people who will a niche for things smaller than a netbook - but then the Android tablets are better here, as they are smaller (not to mention phones).

What if you're out and need something with more power, and all you have is your Ipad?

Apple sells 500,000 iPads, runs out of stock

How much free advertising? Wasted man years?

"almost all of them within 24 hours of the 'even more magical' gadget going on sale on Friday."

24 hours? I don't think so. There's been wall-to-wall media coverage and free advertising for months. Presumably they were taking pre-orders too. The 24 hour period was simply when they shipped.

And they do this everytime - "run out", so we get yet more non-stories giving them coverage.

Of course, now that the Ipad 2 is here, I guess the Register will be running stories of how many thousands of wasted man years went into Ipad 1 right (as with the Nokia story - apparently Symbian is all a waste, because in future there'll be newer Windows phones...) ?

"in fact, 49% were PC users "

That stat makes no sense - "Macs" are PCs these days. If you mean that 49% weren't Apple PC users, that still means that 51% were, suggesting most of the sales are coming from those who are already Apple users. This also ignores the 49% who may also be Ipod users. Perhaps there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm unclear what point the stat is trying to make (other than being yet-another-Apple-story).

I mean, how many Android phone users, once owned a Sony console? How many Windows netbook users have a Nokia phone? Are these all newsworthy stories too?

"If Android was as popular as iOS"

It's more popular.

Why Nokia failed: 'Wasted 2,000 man years' on UIs that didn't work

The problem with this recent news is that we get two types of people:

* Those who like Nokia and Symbian, but are now sad that Symbian is to be replaced with Windows, and fear undue influence of Microsoft on a company that has been doing fine.

* Those who hate Nokia, and use this as another opportunity to bash them.

The result is, it looks like a whole load of people criticising Nokia, but it's important to note that these two camps are arguing from entirely opposite viewpoints. (I seem to fall into a small category of liking Nokia and Symbian, but being openmided to see what Windows brings them.)

Then we have people like Stevie above, who reel out their story about how their 5+ year old Nokia phone was a nightmare, as if that has any relevance today, or is fair to compare against much newer phones. (My old Motorola phone had an awful UI.)

Ilgaz: A good thing too they ignored him, since Ovi is doing just fine. Why on earth would they listen to someone who clearly has an agenda against their products?

(I don't like the Iphones, but if I wrote an article claiming "Iphone 5 is doomed", I wouldn't expect Apple to go "Oh look, someone says it's doomed - good point, let's scrap the product".)

"Guy told me there isn't a single UI for Qt on Symbian/Maemo and gave the list of mess on the article."

As a Qt developer, your "guy" is talking rubbish. There is one Qt UI. I'm not even sure what he could possibly be talking about.

"As he gave the list, I really lost 80% of hope in future of Symbian."

So you're fully supporting of Nokia moving to Windows, right? You can't have it both ways.

Steve Evans: My 5800 is the lower model of the N97, but it has no trouble with GPS lock.

"If you did one of the pocket Hitler mods would pull the post and tell you off."

I think this is more a trouble of "forum mods are idiots", than a problem with Nokia. The same is true of any product/forum.

"Android based HTC Desire Z, and do you know what, it's fan-bloody-tastic!"

A much newer phone is better than your several year-old phone? Well, amazing.

My Nokia 5800 is better than the original Iphone; and it beats my old Motorola hands down. But that's progress.

"As you say, Nokia's navigation of their randomly changing road map would make for a good depressing film, but I doubt anyone would believe it!"

Hardly - Apple would be a far better example of a randomly changing road map.

Dazzz: So Symbian has "quirks", while you acknowledge that Android has "bugs", but this is a reason to move to the latter, on the assumption that they'll be fixed? Why won't the quirks be fixed, also?

Giles Jones: "Nokia failed to grasp touch screens until it was too late. I seem to remember them announcing S60 touch and it still had support for a stylus, they completely blew it!"

This makes no sense. Firstly, stylus isn't a question of OS support, it's simply whether you have resistive or capacitive. Secondly, being able to use a stylus is a good thing - I like the option. But there is no requirement to use one.

And too late for what? They're still the market leader. They had touch screens for years before Apple. It was odd that they went through a phase of dropping them with the likes of the N95, but they've been back for years now. Apple were late to grasp all kinds of features, until it was too late.

Failed? Wasted? I don't think so.

An odd definition of "failure", if they're still market leader in phones and smartphones. It is absurd to say it's a waste - Symbian has sold millions, and made plenty of money for Nokia. The fact that they change to something new in future doesn't make it a waste! By that logic, we might as well moan about the endless man hours that Microsoft spent on XP, or Apple spent on classic MacOS!

If you mean failed in terms of writing their own OS - companies change technology all the time, and plenty use products from other companies.

Is it a failure, because Apple have to use an ARM processor instead of their own? I don't think so. And Apple ditched their own OS once themselves, resorting to building a new one on top of NEXT... Indeed, Apple themselves looked at several "dead ends" (Copeland, Rhapsody) in their search for a new OS.

Qt was also not a dead end - it will provide the SDK for the number one smartphone platform for a period of years, before the switch to Windows. Yes, it's a shame it won't be used by them for a longer period, but that doesn't make it a dead end. By that logic, PowerPC was a dead end for Apple, becaues they switched to x86.

The idea that Symbian is poor is also just point of view:

"Nokia's user experience was inconsistent, unforgiving and hostile"

Yawn, here comes the trolling. My Nokia 5800 works fine, and I'd take it over an Iphone that couldn't copy/paste or multitask, any day. And judging by market sales, most people still prefer Nokia. Maybe it was worse in the past, but then that goes for all phones too. If the best you can say about the Iphone is having flashy transitions via an expensive 3D chip that most people won't use, then that says it all - that's the kind of bloat that some people (ironically usually Apple fans) criticise Microsoft for!

It's a shame that Symbian and Qt won't be around. But let's not conflate that with the tired Nokia bashing. I mean, which is it? If you hate Symbian, you can't be sad that it won't be around anymore...

I also don't see why we get this flood of troll articles just because of a deal with Microsoft. Apple made a deal with them too, if you remember.

Dim Brits think TARDIS IS REAL

Science, or supernatural? And time travel *is* possible

Time travel *is* possible - did it specifically ask about time travel into the past?

It's unclear whether the questions were asking specifically what technological inventions people thought existed, or was more broader than that. I mean, you get people thinking that time travel, teleportation and levitation is possible, through supernatural means. Still rather depressing - but then, we get a large proportion of the population thinking we can have virgin births and ressurrection from the dead...

And if we're going to mock, let's pick up the point that the link claims that stars can sing, based on that oscillations can be converted to noise. If you're going to allow that sloppy twisting of definitions, it doesn't seem unreasonable to claim I can see gravity, because I can see apples falling, or that alcohol counts as erasing memory.

What's more shocking is how many journalists think that Britons think that the TARDIS is real - the survey doesn't claim that at all.

Microsoft to Apple: 'Oh, yeah? Well, your font is too small'

Seems fine to me; and Lindows *won* against MS

If the rules really do say so, then that's fair game. There's nothing worse than someone who tries to win an argument through simply pounding you with vast amounts of text... And trying to make the text smaller to fit more into a limit is a childish way round it.

And it seems a poor tactic for Apple (TM) to make a comparison to "Windows" - in the case against Lindows, Microsoft lost the initial injuction against them on the grounds that Windows was a generic term in computing. If it ever was brought to court, there's a good chance that MS would lose.

Same for the people in these comments bringing up Windows and Word - this is the equivalent to "But Officer, those other people were speeding too". Two wrongs don't make a right.

Now seriously, if Apple (TM) decided to respond to this by challenging MS's trademark of Windows, that would be fair game. But saying that Apple (TM) should be allowed to own generic phrases, because Microsoft do, is poor logic, and just results in more corporate ownership of common phrases.

If it's not an "app store" (TM), then what word do I use?

Goat Jam: Completely false - they chose to change their name, because MS paid them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows :

"The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared that a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark."

And saying they should own app store because most references apply to Apple (TM) would be ridiculous. It would mean Microsoft get to trademark "operating system", Google get to trademark "search engine" and so on.

Canonical pares Ubuntu down to 2 editions

Nokia / MS / Qt

And to add to the point that Nokia have sold Qt on; Qt is open source anyway. So if the worse happens, it can always be forked.

Apple frees iOS 4.3 two days before iPad 2 Arrival™

Free?

For a moment I thought they'd open sourced it. I get free updates on my Nokia all the time, not really news.

I did tethering on my 6 year old cheap feature phone. Unless it means turning the phone into a Wifi router, but I thought that was common on high end phones these days too.

I can't remember the last time I paid for a development environment. I think it was AMOS on the Amiga 15 years ago. (And good it was too - though I still think that the official SDKs should always be free, whether it was the Amiga back then, or Windows, Linux, Symbian and Android now.)

DyXym: "In the short term it probably makes no difference since Apple is sitting on top,"

I agree with your post, but this isn't true - Apple aren't on top. They're about 5th place in phone companies, and 3rd by "smartphone" OS share. The reason it makes no difference is because of the large companies that will churn out Iphone apps no matter what, whilst ignoring the more popular platforms.

Spongibrain: MS give the Express versions away for free. And Qt for Symbian, and whatever SDK Android uses, are free (and open source).

Police expert caught with abuse images

Broken logic

They want to have their cake and eat it - if it's really true that looking at images makes you do what that image shows, shouldn't an interest in looking at _adults_ make you want to do things with, you know, adults?

Steve Jobs bends iPad price reality

"Apple invented the smartphone market" myth

"Like it or not they invented the market for smartphones and tablets. "

No, smartphones existed years before Apple entered it late. And other companies (Nokia, RIM) did and still do outsell Apple. So it *can't* be true they created the market - because there exist other companies that did more to create that market.

(The original Iphone wasn't a smartphone anyway - can you give me a definition that doesn't also include feature phones?)

As for tablets, they weren't the first, and they're now just one among many.

"And, not surprisingly, everyone else wants a piece of it, so Apple will fact some competition."

You've got that backwards. Companies like Nokia created the market, and not surprisingly, companies like Apple wanted a piece of it.

"behind in both the UI and the number of apps"

Citation for number of apps? Windows on my netbook has far more apps. And give me an example of a UI feature that is better in IOS? Every Apple UI I've used is awful; and that's before we consider things like lacking basic UI features like copy/paste.

To the other anonymous coward:

"All apple did was to come up with a very good UI which opened the market for smartphones to the mass-consumer instead of the tech or business users. "

Actually, even this is being too kind to Apple - when Nokia are outselling Apple two-to-one on smartphones, this can't all be to business or tech users. On the contrary - in my experience it's only been geeks where the Iphones have been primarily liked. As you say, they've never been the market leader, so it *can't* be true that they are number one for the mass-consumer market.

Anti-religious campaigners smack down census Jedis

"Jedi" isn't the problem

I think the claims about problems with the Jedi response are overblown - for 2001, it was a good protest in itself, being a criticism with the question in itself (you can't do that if you answer No religion), as well as parodying the idea that beliefs should be respected simply if enough people believe in them.

Having said that, in 2001 there wasn't AFAIK a campaign push for "No religion". Now that there is, it's good to get everyone putting that one response.

But I still think the problem isn't a few people putting down Jedi. The problem is millions putting down that they are Christians simply because they were baptised, or identify as that culturally, even if they don't believe in it.

"In any case, the British people are quite capable of judging for themselves what box they should tick. They don't need to be told."

Sadly there's plenty of evidence that shows poll responses can depend heavily on the wording.

"If the Archbishop of Canterbury were to launch a campaign pleading for people to tick the Christian box, it would be rightly ridiculed as a sign of desperation."

Er, the Church of England still has plenty of power; has a privileged position as part of the Monarchy, and having seats in the House of Lords. Christian worship is still a legal requirement in all state schools.

If his point is to say that secular people are still in a more deperate situation than Christianity - er yes, that's the point.

BBC accused of coming out for porn opt-in?

On bias

Whilst in many occasions the BBC News strive for non-bias, and they are better than many news organisations, this unfortunately is not always the case.

With Section 63 ("extreme" images law), the BBC over a period of years gave coverage to Liz Longhurst for the campaign in support of the Government; getting an opposition viewpoint to be covered took a great deal of work and protest. (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/all_sides_of_the_story.html - the BBC were overwhelmed with complaints, and they did to be fair change their coverage of the story. However, since then they often flipped back to only giving a say to the Government and Longhurst.)

Radio 4 also covered the issue on Today (entirely giving a pro-Government law viewpoint), and Women's Hour (where they had a "debate" featuring two people in support...)

It's opt-out, not opt-in!

The filtering system being proposed is opt-out - i.e., it would be on by default, until you opt out. That's what opt-out means.

The Government MPs in question are spinning this as "opt in". They don't mean that you'll choose to opt in to the filtering system. No, they mean it'll be on by default, but you can "opt in" to view pr0n (nevermind that the filters cover anything 18+).

It's grammatically wrong (the filtering system is what we're talking about, not pr0n). It's technically wrong (suggesting that the default is an Internet with filtering enabled). It's misleading. Let's not let them get away with this spin.

If we talked about an opt-out organ donation system, it would mean organs are donated by default. No one would call this "opt in" claiming "You're opting in to keeping your organs"...

Microsoft 'paid Nokia $1bn' for WinPho 7 deal

No different to Apple...

...over 10 years ago, I remember a certain "bribe" from MS to Apple. Apple seem to have done well out of it, and hopefully Nokia will do. That was for far less than $1 billion, IIRC. To be fair, people moaned about that deal too, as they will do now...

The news is hardly a surprise - clearly MS have a lot more to gain from this, as someone trying to break into the market, with Nokia being the number one phone and smartphone company.

And good news about Qt ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/07/nokia_qt_bye/ ):

Firstly let's not forget what Nokia have done - most importantly, making Qt open source (before it was some odd license, that wasn't available for free use on Windows IIRC).

They've continued development, supporting desktop platforms, and also adding support for the number one smartphone platform.

But this move is also good news - with the recent Nokia/MS news, they're passing it to another company, rather than letting it drop (of course being open source, someone could always fork it as a last resort...) This potentially opens the way for other mobile ports, to Android, Blackberry - and even Windows, to keep Qt on Nokia. (Even if Nokia had stuck with Symbian/Meego and Qt, it's unlikely they would have developed Qt for other mobile platforms.)

"The Nokia brand (trademark) is worth something, but that will be dealt with by the rise of the OS brands. If I wanted a phone now, I'd look for an Android one, I wouldn't be looking for a particular manufacturer."

Ah, a survey of one anecdote!

Nokia are still the number one company. And they advertise under the name "Nokia" - they've never advertised terms like "Symbian".

Meanwhile, the Iphone is advertised by product - how many people go looking for an "IOS phone"?

Android is a special case, as an OS that runs on many manufacturers' phones, though even there, I'm not sure how many people in the mainstream care about the OS.

"I hope Nokia enjoy there 1 billion as there market share in 5 years will prolly be somewhere around the size of the employees of microsoft plus the employees of nokia."

This is the new "Apple are going bust", which we've been hearing for years since *their* deal with MS. People have been saying it for Nokia for years too, yet they still consistently outsell everyone else.

Feeling heat from Macs, Microsoft sells PCs sans crapware

Macs?

I don't see what Apple PCs have got to do with this, it ought to be obvious that Microsoft might be concerned about a bad image of its products as a result with installed software from retailers. To be honest, I'm surprised that they put up with it at all (given all the terms they've dictated to PC sellers in the past...)

As for boot times, my Amiga booted in 5 seconds - and that was with a tiny fraction of the power that OS X needs to run. Complaining about Windows being bloated is about 15 years out of date - OS X requires high requirements these days too.

"Where can granda joe or yummy mummy sal by a PC with Linux pre-installed? Sorry? Can't quite hear you there?"

That's how it used to be for MacOS and OS X - I don't recall Apple fans having a problem recommending them, however.

"and with the Apple iPod/Phone/Pad/Stores halo effect it is driving more people in to the hands of Apple as a one-stop "it just works"(tm) "

These products don't just work any better than any other product. My Sandisk Sansa just works - I just plug and play, unlike an Ipod, which requires installing of special Apple software, and can't be used on another computer because all the filenames are scrambled. (Maybe there's a way, but I expect it to Just Work.)

"Take a quick shufty at what the (large number of) Mac users are doing"

What's so special about that? They're just another brand of PCs these days - no different to Dell or Asus. I would hope that you can do things like writing a document on a Mac.

Herbert Meyer: "New disks are cheap, OEM Win7 cost about $110."

Actually, if you have a valid licence (e.g., you've but a PC with the crapware and want to have a fresh install), you can download the ISOs (somewhere on MS's website). I did this for my netbook, as I wanted to have the installer DVD for backup.

"It is user experience that Apple have over them."

Give me an example of a better use experience? Because I have yet to see a single example. I can however cite plenty of examples of bad UI experiences (e.g., see above with the Ipod).

Microsoft rallies IE6 death squads

Re: ha ha

"IE 6 still has a greater market share than all opera version combined..."

And modern IE versions still has greater market share than Firefox. Ha ha.

Or maybe being more used doesn't mean it's necessarily better. I get tired of people whining about Opera - it's an excellent browser, but if you want to use something else, that's your choice.

Opera was also about when IE 5 or 6 was the only alternative. When I switched from IE, Firefox wasn't even available, and I switched long before it became trendy to do so.

Apple: If you're under 17, you can't use Opera

Parental controls? I don't think so.

Surely any competently written age-restriction software would block access no matter what application was requesting them? Implementing it on a per-application basis is an obvious flaw and loophole.

I mean, so sure - Apple can mark Opera 18+, but that hardly solves the problem, as any kid can download Opera for their website, and get round the block. So as a parental control, it's utterly useless.

How on earth do the various filtering software you can get for Windows (and presumably OS X) work? Clearly applications aren't written to take account of filtering software, but they somehow manage to do the job.

Also, presumably any competent OS these days requires admin privileges to install an application, which can be withheld from the child, again meaning that age restrictions aren't needed?

Samsung admits iPad 2 will be tough to beat

Why is skinniness important?

Skinniness may be hard to be, but why is that important? It's the least important factor - I don't care that my netbook is slightly thicker for example, when it's still light and portable. (And it's also amusing to note that whenever someone points out actual flaws in Apple's products, the response is always "But why would I need to do that?" - yet completely pointless peculiarities about the producted are touted as being essential things.)

My Samsung netbook is way cheaper than an Ipad, and does more. Samsung are doing fine.

iPad 2? Let's be kind and call it iPad 1.5

Re: Why the obsession with making things thinner?

I agree, I thought the same about the Apple Air laptops. If I want smaller, I'd rather my netbook. Being thinner is almost always completely useless, and just something to put on the blurb.

Worse it comes at the expense of functionality - the Airs only have 2 USB sockets, presumably because that's all that will fit...

Behind the competition

Has it been released yet? Or just announced? Or is this just yet another announcement of an announcement?

1GB of RAM has been standard on devices like the ASUS Eee PC and Samsung netbooks for years, plus you get a real OS (not one designed for phones), multitasking, and a physical keyboard, and they're cheaper too. (Can it do copy/paste yet?)

For smaller devices, plenty of Nokia etc phones will have the Ipad's capabilities, with more portability, and the ability to make phone calls. And there are devices like the Samsung Galaxy tab too if you want something bigger.

("Tablet" is just an arbitrary category that ignores the far more popular devices with keyboards, and any smaller device, just to inflate Apple's share. You might as well say that Apple have 100% market share of Ipads...)

"The Tab has been out for several months now, and exactly zero innovation has occured to it or the oversized phone apps that run on it."

Innovation doesn't occur on a single product once it's released - what innovation occured to the Ipad 1 during its released? And how wasn't that just a brick-sized phone?

"do you really want a game to carry on playing when you change applications?"

On a phone, no. On anything larger that's competing with actual computers, yes I want that choice. If not, I might as well just buy an actual computer (especially as they're cheaper anyway, and come with keyboards).

@Ralph 5: Er, why are you assuming that he meant a desktop? Dell make laptops and netbooks, and last time I looked, they had to run off a battery too. My Samsung N220 goes for 11 hours, by the way.

iPlayer Global iPad app price announced

So is this offering something that isn't available on other platforms?

For UK viewers, the BBC have at least written applications for multiple desktop and mobile platforms. The Iphone etc only need their own applications, because they're not capable of common standards like Flash. (Although if it's true that the Flash applications run poorly on other platforms, they should sort that out, just as they do for the Iphone.)

But I wasn't aware of a current way by which non-UK viewers can subscribe to Iplayer?

Come on now - when the BBC favoured only Windows on the desktop, there was an uproar. But at least you could say that Windows is (a) number one, and (b) covered 90% market share. Neither is true for Apple - for (a) the Iphones are way behind Nokia and Android, and (b) even if we only look at "smart" phones, the share is just 15% (less than 5% if you look at all app-capable phones). For the Ipad, it's outsold by Windows netbooks.

dotdavid: "I'd program my own app that used the iPhone streams, but you know they'd just get it removed from the Market"

Actually I believe that they've now prevented that - there used to be a desktop application that would download Iplayer videos via the Iphone API, but now it's blocked!

Eponymous Cowherd: Hmm, the Flash Iplayer application works fine on my Nokia 5800, and that's with an old ~400MHz processor. Does Android struggle with Flash?

iPhone to whup Sony PSP 2

Comparing numbers is meaningless; Nokia are number one

How many of those apps are top end games, and how many are fart, Purity ring and website-wrapper apps?

And going by the official app store is meaningless, as on other platforms, you aren't restricted to only releasing on the official app store - you might as well claim the Iphones have more apps than Windows.

Is there a market for a standalone handheld console, now you can play them on phones? Who knows. I've no doubt that camera manufacturers are asking themselves the same question. But mentioning only Apple is misleading, since Nokia are actually number one by far, and Android as a platform also outsells IOS.

But just has Apple manage to turn a profit even though they're nowhere near number one, I don't see why Sony in turn can't also do a similar thing, making a profit by selling dedicated gaming devices to a niche.

The most obvious problem with phones is the lack of decent controls for games.

Re: Those who fail to learn from history...

Perhaps, but it's a shame you also don't learn that devices that can do the job at a lower price are winning out over more expensive Iphones.

Fanboi rumor mill dances for iPad 2 iPad 3

Re: For the love of god....

Despite the apparent negative comment about fans, the Register are still giving overwhelming coverage to Apple's vaporware and rumourware ("What's that you say? The iPad 2 will be followed by the iPad 3, and it'll have slightly better specs? Groundbreaking news!"). Not that bad, I'd say.

And they poke fun at all companies. Look at their childish "terrible stink of failure" comment on Nokia that's been front page for the last week or so - despite Nokia being the number one most successful mobile and smartphone company.

Personally I'm more interested in running a real OS like Windows or Linux, not one designed for a phone; and having a real keyboard to type on. Though I do wish netbooks would start increasing the screen resolution too.

I don't know why Apple are trying to hype a high resolution - for years, the Iphone had a lower resolution; my old Nokia 5800 has a higher resolution that the Iphones of that time. But no one seemed to criticise the Iphone then, or think resolution was important.

Microsoft plans June Windows 8 tablet tease?

"Microsoft are doomed."

It is rather short-sighted to say that MS have no chance, because Apple were there first. Apple entered the phone market late, and whilst they have lost compared to Android and Nokia, they still sell enough to make a profit. Furthermore, Android itself came even later.

Apple themselves were far from first in the mobile computing market, with plenty of keyboardless (Archos and Nokia tablets) and keyboard devices (netbooks) predating anything from Apple.

Windows is already dominant on netbooks. It's unclear why everything should be different just for devices without a physical keyboard.

Faces of the iPad 2 and iPhone 5 revealed

Re: Circle Jerk

Indeed. Did the Register turn into Apple Rumours Weekly? I can understand for an Apple site, but there isn't this endless number of articles of speculation and rumour for any other products.

Jobs stand-in ranks iPhone over sex

Re: Does he mean "mobile phone"?

Indeed, the use of "iPhone" to mean simply "phone" is annoying. Use "smartphone" if one wants to imply high end (although bog standard feature phones have had apps and Internets long before the Iphone, and it's unclear why the original model even counted as a smartphone).

I even once heard someone say "iPhone-like device". Why yes, if only there was a generic term to refer to devices that were "like an iPhone"...

ECJ gender ruling 'could throw insurance into turmoil'

It's still discrimination even if you can do something about it

"it's discrimination if it is against something you can do nothing about (colour,gender,disability) - not something you can (religious identity, being an asshole)."

I agree with your post in general, but this bit isn't quite right. It's discrimination if it's a judgement on things other than individual merit (although the law may go further and only protect certain types of discrimination).

Refusing someone a room in your B&B because they are a Christian or atheist is still discrimnation - and would be illegal in the UK. Refusing someone a job would also be discrimination (and rightly so), unless it was relevant for a job (so Christianity can still be a requirement for being a vicar).

This is also a wobbly argument, because you get people saying that whilst being gay isn't a choice, having sex is, so they'd claim they're still only discriminating on people who have had sex with the same sex (not to mention that some people will claim that being gay isn't a choice - they may be wrong, but the point is it shouldn't matter).

---

"the actuarial models show that there is a distinctive probability bias between male and female with respect to risk, then that is likely to be the truth."

Just because it's true doesn't stop it being discrimination. It certainly *isn't* true to say that therefore all women are better drivers than all men.

Euro court slaps down insurers over gender risks

Statistical discrimination is still discrimination

"Surely insurance is all about risk assessment and as gender is proven to be a significant factor in car incidents it's a valid factor."

Well this is a crux of the argument - should the right of insurance companies to make a profit, trump laws on discrimination? The court decided no. Traditionally insurance companies have had far greater leeway to statistically discriminate than say, employers. But it's not clear that it should be that way.

There is also some argument to say that statistical discrimination should be okay whilst predujical discrimination (where there is no basis for the generalisations) isn't. But there are still examples of statistical discrimination that we would still consider unfair (not allowing women in the army; or an employer saying that women are statistically more likely to get pregnant).

Note, if *you* are a poorer driver, it's fair game to charge you more. The problem here is that people were being judged not on their driving ability, but the average driving ability of the gender that they were lumped in with. Also AFAIK, the laws only cover certain classes (gender, race, etc), so it's not like this will ruling will ban all forms of discrimination.

For anyone complaining about paying for other people - that's the whole *point* of insurance. You pay money, to cover other people's accidents. If you're a good driver, you'll most likely lose out. If you're a bad driver, or unlucky, you'll gain from it. But it seems an odd thing to complain about. Look at it this way - if you lose out from insurance, it means you've been lucky to have had no or fewer crashes. (If I never have to claim on my home insurance, or my health insurance, I'll be glad!)

Even if it did end up with everyone paying the same (although presumably things like cost of your car/home/etc would always still have an effect), would that be so bad? That was the whole point of insurance. When insurers use all these endless risk factors, remember, they're not doing it for your benefit - they're doing it so they can increase their profits.

"What's next, banning insurance "discrimination" against boy racers with idiotic car modifications and 9 points on their licences?"

Er, no, because that's not discrimination. There the judgement is based on individual merit. Choosing to have car modifications also is unlikely to ever be a protected class.

London man gets 5 years for YouTube terror videos

Least of their problems...

"Seems to me that if watching incindiary vids is enough to inspire much of the populace to violence, they've got bigger problems than this guy"

Don't give them ideas! I'm surprised Governments haven't started making possession illegal, claiming merely watching videos turns people into criminals... (as with Section 63).

Apple vanishes Java from Mac OS X Lion

Re: I hear ya

"It was always nice to have that lineage, my old mac mini could run programs from 1984 and OSX programs from 2004."

Although only through emulation. Today's "Macs" have nothing to do with the 1984 Macs. You can run programs - but then I can run 1985 Amiga programs on Windows 7.

It shouldn't matter if Apple want to drop emulation as standard, surely you can just use a 3rd party emulator, like you'd do for any other old platform, right?

As you say, Apple today are a different company from what they used to be.

Antennagate Redux: Consumer Reports condemns Verizon iPhone 4

Re: What's worse than a fanboi?

Except those are two sides of the same coin. I get bored of Apple fans[*] moaning at people who dare to use other products such as Nokia, Blackberry or those running Android (or those using Windows on netbooks/laptops/desktops). Just look at the fan who got let loose on the Register's front page with the "stink of failure" insult. (If "stink of failure" means consistently being the market leader, that's pretty good I'd say.)

[*] Yes I use the correct word. "boi" has connotations in some gay/trans scenes of androgany, but I fail to see why either that has anything to do with phones, or is a bad thing.

Fujitsu relieves Ballmer's iPad pressure

Business use is a bad thing?

I don't see how being better for business, and having better specs, makes it poor for consumer products. Let's face if, if this was the new Apple Islate, the media would be all over how amazing it is.

You can use Windows for consumer rather than business use, you know. This isn't the 1980s anymore. Nor is it running Windows NT 4.

"is there anything that differentiates this from the WIndows-On-A-Tablet computers we've seen dribbling onto the market over the last decade?"

Is there anything that distinguishes any tablets? Tablets and related mobile devices aren't new - only the hype is.

Edward Clarke: I agree, and this is one reason why I much prefer a Windows netbook (Linux is fine too). To be honest, I suspect that the biggest competition for Windows on tablets will not be the Ipad, but Windows netbooks (which sell far more than Apple).

Linbox: The issue is what's a computer, not how many people need a computer. If you want to count the Ipad as a computer, fine, but also be prepared to include every feature phone, not to mention other things with electronics like games consoles, media players, even TV set top boxes and microwaves...

Apple brings multi-touch, full-disk crypto to latest OS X

Re: multi-touch /= touchscreen

Well in that case, what's new? Windows has had multitouch for years. Indeed, I thought Apple PCs had multitouch already too...

Apple names iPad 2 reveal date

Announcement of an Announcement?

So wait, this is an announcement of an announcement? Why is that news? And all the rumour stories we have up until now have been Rumoured announcement of an announcement of an announcement?

This is getting silly.

(I remember back in the late 90s when PC companies like Gateway had bought out the Amiga, and were rather inept doing things, it got to be a bit of a running joke that we'd end up getting endless "Announcements of Announcements", not to mention endless vaporware rumoured announcements. I loved the Amiga, but the handling of it by later companies was a shame. Sad to see Apple now doing the same. The difference is however that at least back then, the users realised what a sham it was, where as now, the users just lap up the endless announcements of announcements from Apple or the media...)

"What are they for? I use mine every day for casual browsing as it's more convenient than having a laptop out all the time."

How is it more convenient than a netbook? Honest question.

And yes they sold a few million, but that's hardly surprising with endless wall-to-wall coverage and advertising, and with them being a massive company. It's still a drop in the ocean to the hundreds of millions of laptops and smartphones though - the Ipads are okay products if that's what you want, but they are not a revolution.

"If you'd never seen an iPhone or iPod Touch you'd be a lot more whelmed."

No, because we'd just look at our Androids and Nokias and note that Ipads are still just large phones that can't make phone calls. (A phone being big used to be a bad point - we called them "bricks".)

Firefox 4 squeezes onto phones

Beta means not being developed?

"It would also appear that Opera Mobile development has ceased (been in beta since forever)"

It seems that it's just the Android version that is still beta, but note that Opera Mobile is still being developed, and out of beta (version 10.1 for Symbian, and 10.0 for Windows).

And anyhow, Firefox mobile is still beta - that hardly means development has ceased! (On the contrary, beta usually means the complete opposite, rather, that it *is* being developed still...)

Memo to iPad mimics: No one wants a $799 knockoff

Re: Windows table?

"It's not really a "tablet" experience, it's a "Windows on a touch screen" experience"

Can you explain the difference?

Windows (like Linux) is at least a real OS, not one designed for phones - why I'd rather a netbook any day over these tablets.

"The product is a tablet computer, of which the most popular is currently the ipad."

Only if you contrive a market just to make Apple number one. Why is this a separate market to netbooks (especially as you get touch screen netbooks)? We don't separate phones by whether they have keyboard or touchscreen.

Or if your criterion is a hand-held computer, then why aren't smartphones included? The market leaders of tablets are Nokia and Android, not Apple. Apple just make one that's bigger than most other tablets, that's all.

"the lack of an app store with a few hundred thousand apps."

Most of which are website-wrappers - if the browser's so good, why do you need an app for it?

You don't need an app store, when you just download from wherever you like. Would you say that Windows has fewer apps, simply because there's not a centre official app store at all?

Apple 'outstrips' all brands at box office

Re: Brilliant marketing

Indeed, and it's frustrating that even among geeks who are usually knowledgable about the tech industry, that "perception of ubiquitousness" leads them to arguing blue in the face that, say, Apple are the number one phone seller.

They also seem to do well on free product placement by the media, and by individuals. Consider how if ever a product is mentioned, for Apple it's mentioned by name: the BBC will report on someone's Macbook or Ipad; people will talk about their "Iphone"; but for any competitor, it's laptop, tablet, phone. For the media, it results in a bias in reporting. From individuals, it just sounds like trying to brag about their new product.

Also, I must admit I'm surprised that more phones haven't put logos on the casing, as that is an obvious way that the Iphone gets advertising. Although personally I like products to be logo free. Just as with clothes - Apple are the Addidas of the tech world in this respect.

Random trivia/rumour - the Mac in the classic Star Trek film (I forget which one) was originally to be the Amiga, though Commodore messed up/dropped the deal.

Greg J Preece: "People drink Coke, this is ordinary. But there is definitely a line to cross. Seeing a Nokia in a Star Trek film"

Eh? People do use Nokia - more so than any other phone company. And indeed, it would be refreshing to see Nokia for once, rather than advertising for Apple yet again. Or do you mean there's something different about phones to coke, and you'd object to seeing an Iphone or whatever there just as much?

Apple plots iPad 2 production reduction

Needs a few more allegedlys

"Apple has allegedly reduced the alleged number of alleged iPad 2s it wants its alleged contract manufacturer to churn out. If true, the alleged claim suggests Apple may indeed see the alleged iPad 2 simply as small-scale upgrade ahead of the introduction of the alleged iPad 3 later this year.

"If that is true, then this may see the alleged iPad 3 followed by another iPad, which allegedly is rumoured to be called the iPad 4."

Anyhow, isn't half of zero still zero? The product isn't even announced.

(Comparison to Nokia - if no one's going to buy a Nokia phone now that they've announced a future change in technology, by that reasoning, is no one going to buy an iPad, because a new one is announced, sorry, rumoured? Can't have it both ways.)

"And since Apple has not even announced the "iPad 2" (which is an update to a YEAR OLD product), how do you know these devices "coming to market any day now" (yeah, right!) are superior?"

Well then, I assert the new not-even-announced "AmigaPad" is superior to anything coming to the market.

iPad 2 launch could be delayed by two months, analyst says

announcement of announcements

"Announcement of Apple announcement delayed by two months, says Analyst"

So this is like, an announcement that a future announcement of a possible unannounced-product announcement has been delayed.

Also there's an announcement that the iPad 3 will follow the iPad 2, and after that, there'll be an announcement of the unannounced-iPad 4, which will be followed by the release of the iPad 4, which by then will have been announced.

Windows Phone 7 gets 'goodie' update

No one cares about market share anyway

"A cheap shot. I and I suspect many others expect better from the Reg, or does the fact that the entire world is not using iOS really twist the knife that much?"

I agree. And it's a joke that market share actually matters anyway - I have a Nokia, and could therefore make similar "both of them" jokes about Iphones, since Nokia smartphones far outsell them. But instead you just get tonnes of hype in the media about the Iphone anyway, despite being less popular than Android and Symbian. (Although at least The Reg is somewhat critical of the Apple hype, sometimes.)

(Plus when Nokia switches to WP as their OS, even if Nokia's share does fall, it's not inconceivable that the help to WP's share will push it to being more popular than IOS. I look forward to the smile being wiped off their face when that happens.)

A similar inconsistency applies to copy/paste. When the Iphones didn't have it for years, it was deemed unimportant. When WP doesn't have it for a few months, it's considered a major flaw.

Apple iOS dominates Euro smartphone usage

Re: it's all in the interpretation

"looking at those charts what I see as andriod gaining and ios loosing share"

Indeed - and note how this compares to the reporting on *actual* share for Nokia. Where are all the headlines of "Nokia Symbian dominates smartphone sales"? No, instead we just get doom and gloom on how their market share has fallen.

So why not for Apple? Why not write off Apple as a "terrible stink of failure", now that we can see that usage share is falling?

"Terrible stink of failure coming off them certainly didn't help"

Talking of the anti-Nokia bias, what's with the "Terrible stink of failure coming off them certainly didn't help" and a pic of the perfectly good (though a few years old now) Nokia 5800? The article it links to doesn't have this bias nonsense.

Is this meant to be a professional publication? It's like some angry child who wants to brag about the expensive Iphone his parents got him, wrote some rant on The Reg front page when no one was looking...

The Nokia 5800 is a perfectly decent smartphone for it's time - remember that at that time, the Iphone couldn't even do basic functionality like copy/paste, multitasking, Flash or video, despite it costing far more; and Android mid-range phones also had lower resolutions and poorer cameras. And comparing an old Nokia to modern phones is unfair, when there are newer phones from Nokia.

Given that Nokia are still the number one phone and smartphone company (despite bias claims like in this article), it seems plenty of people spending their money agree with me.