Good god the iPad is a steaming pile of disappointment

You didn't answer my question about how you would feel if these same arguments lead to a stick-shift being more expensive and hard to get. You would think this is a positive development?

The only thing keeping it cheaper is that the technology is much much much simpler than an automatic transmission (you ever tear one of those beasts apart; I have, not much fun).

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You didn't answer my question about how you would feel if these same arguments lead to a stick-shift being more expensive and hard to get. You would think this is a positive development?

Cyclops; the HAVE already made stick-shifts more hard to get. Most models of cars/trucks do not even give stick-shift options to consumers.

The only thing keeping it cheaper is that the technology is much much much simpler than an automatic transmission (you ever tear one of those beasts apart; I have, not much fun).

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You didn't answer my question about how you would feel if these same arguments lead to a stick-shift being more expensive and hard to get. You would think this is a positive development?

Stick shifts are more hard to get.

I'm saying it's awfully narcissistic of you to insist we do it your way because that's what you are used to.

Local caching means local processing and storage. If you have those there's no reason at all not to give the user control of the local box.

My complaint about the Ipad isn't that it's a bad product, it's that it's one that you have very little control over and one that apple will try to prevent you from ever improving.

I'd just hate to see that market get crowded out by a group who are so excited about everything server- and net- based that what I want becomes expensive instead of cheap as it is today.

I'm glad to see that you have dropped the pretense of ignoring me; I declare a cease-fire in my accusations that you are constantly against Obama.

This is more about the internet going beyond traditional computers than the death of the computer. The computer and the internet have done a piss poor job in the living room, on the TV and in books.

I simply don't like the idea that this the direction that the majority of programming and product creation is moving towards. Others think it's an entirely good thing and that eventually ALL personal computers will run that way, just thin clients. I understand that there are positives and negatives to both positions, but at least with my position, I own my data and my programs - they cannot be arbitrarily taken from me at any time the way that a company decides to, or the network goes down. These are limitations which I am unwilling to accept in my computer usage.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I simply don't like the idea that this the direction that the majority of programming and product creation is moving towards. Others think it's an entirely good thing and that eventually ALL personal computers will run that way, just thin clients. I understand that there are positives and negatives to both positions, but at least with my position, I own my data and my programs - they cannot be arbitrarily taken from me at any time the way that a company decides to, or the network goes down. These are limitations which I am unwilling to accept in my computer usage.

You are conflating different issues though. You don't like proprietary right? Well it doesn't get much more open than a web app. You don't even install the program. Just for this reason, it's a nice open-source platform. It's got desktop deployment beat hands down and is nice and portable. There are many other simple inherent benefits of browser-based apps. Hell it doesn't even have to be remote, you can have a local-browser based app. The point is the platform is wide open and we already spend most of our time in the browser.

So things are going to move away from the desktop regardless whether thin clients are going to catch on. These are separate, but related because as more moves into browser the switching cost to a thin client lowers, issues. You can still not want a thin client (I need a non-thin client myself) to appreciate this.

But if you appreciate that paradigm, you can appreciate the utility of a thin client, because you won't be as tied to your desktop platform. This doesn't mean you have to lose control of your data either, but yes in practice it usually means someone else is hosting it.

Anyway, the issue of whether or not to use a thin client is just not the same as the web app vs desktop issue. Thin clients can be used to connect to desktop apps for example. These are separate issues.

you STILL haven't told me how you feel about this.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

you STILL haven't told me how you feel about this.

I generally don't get uptight about what other people choose to buy. It's a waste of emotional effort, since I can't control what they do.

Data hosted by someone else is by definition removed from your control in a variety of ways.

What's the difference from the perspective of the end users doing the work, playing the games, storing the data, and whatnot? For them, Yahoo's and Google's data centers are black boxes to which they outsource data and computing power. We nerds may find it interesting that these data centers are clusters of PCs rather than monolithic Crays, say. But what difference does it make to end users what hardware architecture companies use inside the data centers?

it's about you no longer being ABLE to buy what you like thanks to choices others have made - choices to go forward with a product that you consider to be inferior. Was my original explanation of the scenario unclear?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

it's about you no longer being ABLE to buy what you like thanks to choices others have made - choices to go forward with a product that you consider to be inferior. Was my original explanation of the scenario unclear?

I wouldn't know where to buy a vacuum tube for a ham radio. I wouldn't know where to buy a buggy whip. I wouldn't know where to buy a 300-baud external modem. I wouldn't know where to buy a 16K RAM module for my old Atari 800.

Technology changes. This isn't news.

What's the difference from the perspective of the end users doing the work, playing the games, storing the data, and whatnot? For them, Yahoo's and Google's data centers are black boxes to which they outsource data and computing power. We nerds may find it interesting that these data centers are clusters of PCs rather than monolithic Crays, say. But what difference does it make to end users what hardware architecture companies use inside the data centers?

I think you are trying hard to avoid admitting that you would not be happy when a technology that YOU prefer is supplanted by a different one due to market pressures.

it's all blue potatoes to me. surely there will be cheaper version of this type of device, and surely some will continue to pay higher price for iPad (or iPod, iPhone, iWhatever) because of the brand name. Just another fashion thing, no? Why get upset about it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think you are trying hard to avoid admitting that you would not be happy when a technology that YOU prefer is supplanted by a different one due to market pressures.

I think you are trying hard to put words in my mouth. I won't cry a single tear if someday I can't buy a stick-shift.

I get where you're coming from. I like to drive a standard, because it gives me more control. On the other hand, I don't tell everyone else that driving an automatic is stupid.