Posts by RefriedNoodle 5 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Sep 2009
What's the point of having two speakers on the iPad, given that it can be held in portrait or landscape? I'm sure a little background music will sound better with 2 speakers when reading an iBook in portrait, but it'll be useless when you rotate the thing 90 degrees to watch a movie.
I always thought this was one reason why Apple never bothered to put more than 1 speaker in it anyway, given the 4-way orientation possibility.
http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/07/10/apple-responds-to-epeat-concerns/
Appears that Apple thinks their products are well within "green" specifications, but also in fields that are not measured by EPEAT. Also, EPEAT does not certify a large chunk of Apple's stuff, such as iPods, iPhones and iPads.
In the same article, EPEAT admits that their standards are a little old and they are in the process of updating their certifications.
Still this is a curious move by Apple, as a lack of EPEAT certification means the US government won't shop there any more, as 95% of their purchases needs to be EPEAT certified.
...of both companies. I always thought Apple's "I'm a Mac" campaign was a little below the belt, but this list of Microsoft is downright crap.
Use Windows for a PVR? I thought they DRM'd most of it to the point where it can't do the things most people want.
Mac doesn't let you choose? Try walking into a computer shop and try to buy a pc *without* Windows. See if Microsoft lets you choose that.
Macs don't like to share? One of the most frustrating things i sometimes have to do on Windows, is share files with computers not on the same domain as i am. While i have no issues with using scp on the commandline to get my files anywhere i want on *nix. Yeah, the syntax takes some getting used to, but it works anytime.
And two other points on the list basically say "we have a monopoly, it's best for both of us if you just bend over."
Again/still by forging the vendor ID of the USB protocol, pretending to be an Apple device while it is not.
This is against the license of the USB Implementer's Forum. No matter how noble (or not) the cause is, the method Palm uses is highly debatable, and they potentially risk losing the license to use the term "USB" on any of their products.
I think they're shooting themselves in the foot here. I don't see how they can win this round. This isn't even between Palm and Apple, but between Palm and the USB-IF.
"As far as I'm aware, it's because Apple's policy on iPhone apps prohibits offering products that can run arbitrary code, even if that arbitrary code is running on something as limited as a virtual C64."
Actually, not true. There are several other games in the AppStore that run inside an interpreter, such as a few Sega games.
The reason for this app to be rejected the first time however, if i remember correctly, was that the app allowed executable code (the games) to be downloaded and run (inside the interpreter/emulator) outside of the appstore.
This basically bypasses the appstore. In this case it would probably only be used for games, but if this business model was allowed by Apple, it would allow one to write a framework with its own downloadable utilities, bypassing the AppStore's business model entirely.
And also Apple could not guarantee the performance and/or security issues if downloadable executable code would be allowed without their approval.
Of course, you can take this any way you want (personally i *think* the businessmodel-implications would weigh heavier than the performance issue). But it's Apple's ballpark.
