Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:

Tofu wrote:With the price of netbooks being what they are, I'm still confused about what the point of the ipad is. What does it do thats so special besides looking cool so you can show off at the coffee shop?

Actually, it's a little known fact, but the iPad isn't even a real computer. It just displays semi-random animations in response to user input, solely for the purpose of showing off at the coffee shop. Apple collects $500 profit on a $600 device because the internals are so simple.

Apple collects revenue from coffee trade groups because iPad owners spend so much time sitting in coffee shops admiring the logos on their Apple products.

I guess it's feeding time at the troll-zoo. The ipad is the perfect size for travel use, especially en route. And its battery life is awesome. I just brought my ipad on a 9 hour car trip; I used it every second I wasn't driving, and I'm sure my brother was extremely impressed with how cool I looked.

Have you ever brought a newspaper along to the subway/cafe/road trip? Did your newspaper have a camera? Did it have a full-size keyboard? Did it run windows? Could you install KGS on it? Okay, then.

I agree that Apple sucks in general, and they way they intentionally cripple their best products to keep them tethered to the Appleverse sucks even more, but anyone who whines that the ipad is just an expensive tablet netbook has envy issues.

jts wrote:

hyperpape wrote:

Tofu wrote:With the price of netbooks being what they are, I'm still confused about what the point of the ipad is. What does it do thats so special besides looking cool so you can show off at the coffee shop?

Actually, it's a little known fact, but the iPad isn't even a real computer. It just displays semi-random animations in response to user input, solely for the purpose of showing off at the coffee shop. Apple collects $500 profit on a $600 device because the internals are so simple.

Apple collects revenue from coffee trade groups because iPad owners spend so much time sitting in coffee shops admiring the logos on their Apple products.

I guess it's feeding time at the troll-zoo. The ipad is the perfect size for travel use, especially en route. And its battery life is awesome. I just brought my ipad on a 9 hour car trip; I used it every second I wasn't driving, and I'm sure my brother was extremely impressed with how cool I looked.

Have you ever brought a newspaper along to the subway/cafe/road trip? Did your newspaper have a camera? Did it have a full-size keyboard? Did it run windows? Could you install KGS on it? Okay, then.

I agree that Apple sucks in general, and they way they intentionally cripple their best products to keep them tethered to the Appleverse sucks even more, but anyone who whines that the ipad is just an expensive tablet netbook has envy issues.

Thanks for enlightening us. You've told us what you didn't do with your ipad, but forgot to include what you actually did do...except look cool.

Yours truly,

Tofu - Located in the exotic food cage at the "troll zoo".

I think the iPad is actually an impressive device, for certain tasks. Reading texts (books, articles, magazines), playing certain games, and writing. But it doesn't replace a computer, and I think we don't really know what it's going to do yet. I think it will take more time for people to adapt to a device like that and find uses.

This said, I think it needs to be much cheaper to reach that point, and I'd like to see it lighter.

As for go, though, with SmartGo Kifu and the new Tetsuki, it's quite an amazing tool.

Tofu wrote:You've told us what you didn't do with your ipad, but forgot to include what you actually did do...except look cool.

I'd guess 60% Safari, 20% email, 10% gmaps, 10% NYTimes. The sarcasm apparently didn't come through; I was not using the iPad in the car so that my brother would think I was cool, and if that had been my intention I would have failed miserably.

kirkmc wrote:If you want to have your own walled garden, that's your right. But your saying - at other times - that other clients would crash the server makes me wonder why you think that. After all, there are no other clients. You've never said why this would happen, and from my knowledge of network protocols, I don't see what would be so special about the KGS protocol that would lead to problems.

Just saying, as a KGS Plus member, it's something I'd like to see.

I'm pretty sure thaht I've never said that other clients would crash the server, because that isn't a worry of mine. It might happen, but then I just fix the server, so in a way the other clients would be doing me a favor by pointing out my bugs if they crash it. I've seen other people speculate that this is one of my concerns. If I ever did say that...well, then it was a dumb idea of mine. I do have those sometimes.

And I do want to say, I'm not on some anti-Apple vendetta. I just have a strong opinion on how I want to run KGS (which is to say, as a whole product, not just as a server that people plug in their custom clients to), and I also have very limited time available that makes it impossible to do all the clients and features that I'd like.

I'm pretty sure you have said that in other discussions (perhaps not here, but on GD).

So why don't you let someone make a native Mac OS X client? If anything, it could help you find better features for CGoban that you haven't thought of, and it would be a good thing for those of us using Macs. (I'm pretty sure I know someone who'd be able to write one too...)

wms wrote: And I do want to say, I'm not on some anti-Apple vendetta. I just have a strong opinion on how I want to run KGS (which is to say, as a whole product, not just as a server that people plug in their custom clients to), and I also have very limited time available that makes it impossible to do all the clients and features that I'd like.

kirkmc wrote: So why don't you let someone make a native Mac OS X client?

While I'd love to see native client apps for both Mac OS & iOS, Kirk you must admit that WMS wants to run KGS exactly like Apple wants to run iTunes, and to a lesser degree iOS. They both want to make the "whole product" & not cede control of any significant part to 3rd parties.

Fortunately for consumers there are other choices, both for digital consumer products & go servers.

kirkmc wrote:I'm pretty sure you have said that in other discussions (perhaps not here, but on GD).

So why don't you let someone make a native Mac OS X client? If anything, it could help you find better features for CGoban that you haven't thought of, and it would be a good thing for those of us using Macs. (I'm pretty sure I know someone who'd be able to write one too...)

I suspect this would throw up problems like maintenance. Does the writer of the new client want to commit to being there to update it whenever the server changes? To fixing things which may show up some way in the future? Does wms want to be responsible for making sure there is always a maintainer for this new code, and if not who does he cede responsibility to? And if it ever doesn't work, is the 'KGS is rubbish cos my mac client doesn't work' criticism preferable to or worse than the 'KGS is bad because there is only one client (that does work)' criticism that it currently gets?

I'm not saying any of these things are real problems, but it isn't obvious to me that they aren't. And as imabuddha points out, these are essentially the same reasons that Apple so jealously protect their brand.

Let me first answer the On-Topic part, and then I will go on a rant which you might want to ignore.

kirkmc wrote:Anyway, my point was about more than just the iPad; I'd very much like to have a native client for Mac OS X that doesn't use Java with its many quirks. And I know there are a couple of people who would like to make them.

Sure. There are always people who are willing to make stuff. Native OSX, native Windows (we have had this discussion before) and so on. But this is WMS's decision to allow or not. And it seems he is pretty adamant, and I am not really sure what we can accomplish by rehashing the old arguments with a dash of new flavor.

Just consider: IGS opened its protocol to allow exactly what you are suggesting KGS should do. And even though IGS is much older, it still does not have a decent client, and when it does - it gets broken and not-supported within a year, and the server is still bound to the ancient telnet protocol, and the whole thing seems to be just going downhill. What makes you think KGS will fare any better if it opens its protocol?

---------------------------------------

And now for some iPad ranting.
Don't read if you are an iPad fan and have high blood pressure.

kirkmc wrote:Well, you've got a couple of things wrong. The iPad does multitasking,

Like what?
I played with it enough to know I cannot browse the web and read my email at the same time. Or read L19 and download some app from the AppStore at the same time. Or - pick almost any other two activities you would usually do on a computer in separate windows and chances are iPad does not do it. Yeah, i know, iPad is not a computer, its a glorified oversized iPhone, but as such it is useless... it is too big to be used as a phone and it has not enough functionality to serve as a netbook. It cannot even replace a decent ereader since it will ruin your eyes.

kirkmc wrote:and I don't see the use for a camera on a device that size.

Skype? For example....
It has uses on smaller devices (iPhones), and on larger ones (laptops). What makes iPad's size so unique that it does not need camera?

But its not only the camera... a lack of USB is simply criminal, imho.

kirkmc wrote:Flash and Java are both resource hogs, and tests of Android tablets that run Flash show that their battery life is terrible; when Flash works, that is, because apparently it doesn't work very well on all of them.

It seems to work ok on pretty much every computer I have ever used, from PC to Unix, to OSX. True, resources on iPhone-size devices are more limited, but iPad is not iPhone-sized, and there are full-fledged laptops (of any flavors) smaller than this which support both Flash and Java without any particular problems I have heard about. I have used Java on my ancient laptop running winXP with 512MB Ram, and there was no issues. iPad simple cannot be much crappier than that!! Or, at least - it should not be that much crappier. And if it is, it is up to us, the users, to bash on Apple until it straightens up and decides to produce a tablet worthy of its name.

kirkmc wrote:As for Java, Apple has decided that there are too few Java apps for them to really support it.

Its more like both Java and Flash are hard for Apple to control via the AppStore. There are enough Java applications out there to warrant Java being supported on most other devices, Apple computers included.

kirkmc wrote:In the future, it'll be up to Sun to provide it, but they won't put it on iOS devices for reasons similar to those they chose for Flash: battery life, reliability, and security. (Apparently, given that there is fragmentation in Java itself, CGoban doesn't work correctly with all flavors of Java. This seems to be another reason to look toward other solutions in the future.)

In any case, blaming hardware for not supporting old software seems to me to be the wrong way around.

I am not doing that.
I am blaming hardware for not providing functionality that is widely used and expected from such devices, and which, at least partially, it boasts it has (the whole 'best way to browse the web' slogan.) Anyhow... the Apple's claim (and yours too) is not that Java and Flash are 'old'. It is that they are resource-intensive, crash a lot, and lack security, among other things. If not for the fact that the rest of the world seemed to have somehow solved most of these issues, I fail to acknowledge the validity of Apple's (and your) claim.

Well, without going into too many details... People said Apple was stupid when they got rid of the floppy drive. They're starting to say that getting rid of the optical drive is stupid. Personally, the _only_ java app I have _ever_ used in 20 years of using Macs is CGoban. The only one. I have never even seen any java apps that have in any way tempted me to use them. (The only one was some OpenOffice thing.)

To be fair, I know there are some java apps that are used for network deployment and management. But that's a very small subset of users.

As for Flash, it's days are numbered. So what if Apple ditches them first? The others will follow; HTML 5 offers fare better solutions. It's only because Adobe has so much invested in Flash that people are raising a stink. Flash is used for basically two things: annoying ads and videos. The latter can be done, better, with HTML 5.

Bantari wrote: (about the iPad)
It cannot even replace a decent ereader since it will ruin your eyes.

That's BS. It's a high quality IPS LCD display, and as such is no worse for the eyes than the computers & tv screens which hundreds of millions of people stare at for many hours each day.

kirkmc wrote:Well, without going into too many details... People said Apple was stupid when they got rid of the floppy drive. They're starting to say that getting rid of the optical drive is stupid.

Though getting dated, I can't resist linking to this video from The Onion: The MacBook Wheel.

Key moments:
"The MacBook Wheel lets consumers accomplish everyday tasks like typing with just a few dozen spins and clicks of a wheel."

Jobs: "People who use keyboards 'standing in the way of human progress.'"

imabuddha wrote:

Bantari wrote: (about the iPad)
It cannot even replace a decent ereader since it will ruin your eyes.

That's BS. It's a high quality IPS LCD display, and as such is no worse for the eyes than the computers & tv screens which hundreds of millions of people stare at for many hours each day.

Here is, sort of, how it was explained to me by my eye doctor.

Both computers and TV screens are actually pretty bad for your eyes. What saves most of the users is that the way your eyes track the screen in 99% of computer usage is different than when you're reading a book. Using computer involves usually reading of small portions of text at the time, scrolling, jumping, switching to a different page, lots of graphics, and so on... This reduces eye strain by inducing blinking and making the eye to track in a less predictable patterns.

Many people, me included, develop eye problems from working on computers too much and have to wear a special glasses which reduce the stress on the eye.

TV's are better since you usually watch them from a much greater distance. And commercials help too, since they usually make you to take a break. I don't know many people who watch TV 12 hours a day, anyways.

Electronic book readers use a different technology, as you can clearly see when you look at their screens. They are MUCH easier on the eyes than regular computer monitors and iPod display. This technology was developed precisely because of the way using a regular laptop screen would damage your eyes.

I can read a kindle for hours without any problems, while my eyes start hurting after about 2 hours on a computer (or on the iPad)

This is why I say that I would never use iPad (or my laptop) to do any serious reading other than the regualar internet browsing and an occasional article here and there. So iPad cannot replace an eReader, in my opinion. But hey - if it works for you, good luck.

kirkmc wrote:Well, without going into too many details... People said Apple was stupid when they got rid of the floppy drive.

This is a common fallacy.
I was right once, now I am automatically right again.
You know better than that.

kirkmc wrote:They're starting to say that getting rid of the optical drive is stupid. Personally, the _only_ java app I have _ever_ used in 20 years of using Macs is CGoban. The only one. I have never even seen any java apps that have in any way tempted me to use them. (The only one was some OpenOffice thing.)

To be fair, I know there are some java apps that are used for network deployment and management. But that's a very small subset of users.

As for Flash, it's days are numbered. So what if Apple ditches them first? The others will follow; HTML 5 offers fare better solutions. It's only because Adobe has so much invested in Flash that people are raising a stink. Flash is used for basically two things: annoying ads and videos. The latter can be done, better, with HTML 5.

Well, I am not a flash-lover myself, but there is tons of other uses for flash than that. There are interactive sites, educational sites, and so on, some quite good. Also, flash supports a wide range of media, while HTML 5 is closely tied to Apple's own format or codec, isn't it. I seem to have read about it somewhere.

To me, if a technology should die, it should die because something better comes along and people stop using it. Not because it is bullied into oblivion by over-eager hardware manufacturer. There should be room for all kinds out there, and simply forbidding what you don't like is not cool in my book. Apple can do whatever it wants, but this does not automatically makes is holy.

And iPad is just bad, man! Very very bad! I would love to see a batter device from Apple, but until people like you just sing its praises Apple will never have any incentive to improve it.

Bantari wrote: This technology was developed precisely because of the way using a regular laptop screen would damage your eyes.

Actually I believe e-ink tech was developed primarily as a display that required no power to maintain its state, with low cost & high pixel density as secondary concerns.

In any case, we've strayed far from the actual thread topic…