mendax.org http://mendax.org Warrior Poet, Techno-Shaman, Shady Operator. WyldKard. Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:00:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 en hourly 1 Why do you need Flash on your iPhone? http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wyldkard/~3/UA22xIgSwj8/ http://mendax.org/2009/11/04/why-do-you-need-flash-on-your-iphone/#comments Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:00:20 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1858

People love to complain, and we think half of it is due to laziness. Or incompetence. And with the , it’s no different. Take MMS for example: thousands claimed it was silly for the not to support it, but we disagreed. MMS is an outdated technology for which there are plenty of modern-day solutions, ranging from e-mail to Twitter. To rely on yet another protocol for sharing multimedia, when more reliable solutions exist, is nonsense. With rock-solid Twitter integration thanks to the dozens of Twitter apps on the AppStore, we barely find a need for SMS anymore, let alone it’s bigger cousin. Never mind the fact that e-mail works just as well for sharing multimedia.

But then there’s Flash, arguments for which are even more ridiculous. Who needs Flash on their ? Yes, some sites aren’t non-Flash friendly, and therefore can’t be browsed via Mobile Safari, but that’s less ’s fault, and more the fault of web developers who decide to use Flash instead of other, more accepted (and open) technologies. It’s not like Flash was always viewable from every browser anyway, so why do people argue that the should suddenly adopt Flash as a sort of multimedia standard? Even dismissing arguments about how Flash is burdensome on one’s CPU and battery, there remains the obvious distaste for a third-party plugin that’s not friendly to industry-wide standards.

What Flash is, is a luxury. A luxury you get to have if you’re on a system not constrained by smaller processors and batteries. A luxury you get when you don’t care about a common user interface for your apps, because you’re not using a heavily-integrated phone-computer. And that luxury is not a right just because a bunch of lazy developers refuse to use more modern technologies to reproduce the output of a commercial Adobe product.

What people should be complaining about is not that the doesn’t support Flash, but that some sites are developed in Flash in the first place.
Similar Posts:


]]> http://mendax.org/2009/11/04/why-do-you-need-flash-on-your-iphone/feed/ 0 http://mendax.org/2009/11/04/why-do-you-need-flash-on-your-iphone/ Enough with the “pitbull” hate. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wyldkard/~3/SpJpDDSsRBg/ http://mendax.org/2009/10/17/enough-with-the-pitbull-hate/#comments Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:45:09 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1848

When we decided to adopt an American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), we knew that we’d be fighting an uphill battle against the ignorant masses. Thanks to exaggerated, biased media reports that sell their stories by promoting fear-mongering, the press has demonized a number of dog breeds under the “pitbull” label. It’s unfortunate for a variety of reasons, not the least which is the euthanizing of hundreds of “pitbulls” in shelters across the United States.

While we did a fair amount of research into the APBT and related breeds, it’s since become more and more obvious to us that the media is still on its mission to place blame on the wrong parties. The Michael Vick story helped bring certain elements of the issue to light, but the damage to “pitbull” breeds was done by Sports Illustrated years ago, and the damage likely won’t be undone for many years to come, if ever. And it’s not just the media, but regular folks who regurgitate untruths because they simply don’t know any better. For the purpose of promoting facts, let’s clarify some points for those whose knowledge of “pitbulls” is based entirely on hearsay and partial information.

First off, there is no “pitbull” breed. The media lumps several breeds under this label, to include the APBT, American Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and others. This even includes mastiff mixes and other mutts. Basically, any dog that vaguely visually resembles a stocky, yet athletic dog, similar in appearance to the APBT, is designated a “pitbull.” Interestingly, the APBT is the only breed with “pitbull” in its name, and it’s the second smallest of the aforementioned breeds. In fact, of those breeds, only the American Bulldog typically exceeds 85lb in weight. Stories of 100+lb pitbulls refer to mastiffs or mastiff mixes. The APBT, for example, maxes out at around 60lbs for a male. APBT’s on the lower end weigh as little as 30lbs. But to understand the “pitbull,” one has to know more than its size.

A little history.

One of the first things anyone will tell you about the “pitbull” is that it was bred to fight other dogs, but this is only a half-truth. To understand the whole picture, one has to go even further back in history. All of the aforementioned breeds have a common ancestor: the old English bulldog. This bulldog breed weighed 45 pounds average (the median weight for an APBT), and was a working dog that technically no longer exists. It was also the father of the modern-day English Bulldog, which is derived from a cross-breed of the old English bulldog and the Pug, and further bred for certain aesthetic elements, resulting in today’s rather unhealthy breed. Its ancestor, on the other hand, was a very powerful, agile, working dog.

The old bulldog breed was named after a sport that placed the breed in high demand: bull-baiting, a sport later outlawed. Mind you, it was also used for other working tasks of the era, to include pulling loads, working cattle, and other farmhouse activities. Nonetheless, the popularity of bull-baiting made the old English bulldog a popular breed, and it is said that the breed was derived of smaller mastiff stock, later bred with greyhounds to increase agility.

The sport of bull-baiting required two important factors, which remain with modern-day APBTs and many “pitbull” breeds. Firstly, strong jaws were required in order for the dog to grab ahold of a bull’s snout and hold on despite any movement by the bull. It is important to distinguish strong jaws and the behavior to hold on at all costs with “lock-jaw,” however, which is a myth. Where the myth of “lock-jaw” originated, we don’t know, but there is no physical mechanism for a dog to “lock” its jaws in a bite. In fact, “pitbulls” don’t have exceptionally stronger bite strength than other dogs, but merely retain the knack of holding onto a target. Most other breeds, when confronted, have a tendency to snap, gnash, slash, and tear. Secondly, “gameness” was required to confront an enormous, bucking bull. This fierce courage would become an important trait for a bulldog’s success in the “pit.” Note that the “pit” in “pitbull” refers to a hole that the bull, and bulldog, were placed into for bull-baiting. It does not refer to a dogfighting pit.

When bull-baiting was banned in 1835 by British Parliament, the bulldog’s popularity declined. Around that time, dog-fighting began to rise in popularity, and it was then that the bulldog was bred with trace amounts of old English terrier in order to increase the breed’s agility. These terriers, too, were known for their gameness. The resulting breed, still quite similar to the bulldog of old, became known in the US as the APBT, while in England, it was named the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. By the 1960s, dog-fighting was banned in most US States, with the last State signing off on the ban in 1976.

The American Staffordshire Terrier is of the same stock as the APBT and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, only bred further for the show ring (and to distance the breed from dog-fighting). The APBT and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, meanwhile, remained working dogs. While they were favored by dog-fighters, they were still used for a variety of working purposes, much like their bulldog ancestors. In fact, so respected were these dogs, that the US adopted the APBT to symbolize America: friendly, courageous, hard-working, and loyal. Indeed, the APBT was considered such a good family dog, and so good with children, than it was referred to as the “nanny dog.” The dog in The Little Rascals: yeah, it was an APBT.

How was the APBT’s reputation not marred back then, despite dog-fighting still being legal in the United States? One reason is simple: traditional dog-fighting did not tolerate human-aggression. In a typical dog-fighting ring, not only were there two dogs, but there were at least two people inside the ring as well, constantly re-positioning their respective dog’s bites for scoring purposes. With human hands in such close contact with fighting dogs, mid-fight, signs of human aggression were not tolerated. If such aggression materialized, the dogs would immediately be put down. Thus, the only fighting dogs that were further bred were those without any signs of human aggression. So it was no mystery that these same dogs, fierce in the ring against other dogs, would be very good household companions. After the ban on dog-fighting was put in place, dog-fighting naturally declined. Most APBTs involved in the sport were re-integrated in the general house-pet populace, along with their non-fighting APBT brothers, and their American Staffordshire Terrier cousins. Since, the APBT has continued to excel as a working and family dog.

Today, dog-fighting lives on, primarily in low-income, high-crime areas. Dog-fighting is linked to the drug trade and violent gangs, and it’s no surprise that most dogs used in the ring for this purpose lead pretty awful lives, not just when they fight, but in their daily lives as well. They are generally uncared for, malnourished, and never properly socialized or trained. Sadly, APBTs are often still favored for the sport, because what made them great at bull-baiting, and in the dog-fighting of earlier days, also make them great at dog-fighting today: their bite-and-hold, gameness, strength, and agility.

Regarding aggression.

Sites like dogsbite.org suggest that “pitbulls” are dangerous, but in actuality, sites like dogsbite.org lie. In this case, it’s a matter of the site owner having been attacked in the past, and now going on a rampage against “pitbulls” out of ignorance. Truth is, the “facts/conclusions” on those sites are made up, and not actually supported by purposeful studies, if any real studies whatsoever.

Based on the history above, there’s an obvious correlation between dog-fighting and APBTs, even though it’s not what APBTs were specifically bred for. Moreover, other dog breeds were used in dog-fighting too. However, the APBT’s traits have made them a choice breed for the bloodsport, in much the same way the breed excels at other working tasks: the “Superdog” title is used to describe any dog that has earned UKC titles in four areas open to all breeds, namely conformation, agility, weight pull, and obedience. Twenty of 47 Superdogs have been APBTs, and nine others Staffordshire Bull Terriers. That means over half of all Superdogs are of the same bulldog/terrier stock, illustrating just how intelligent, athletic, and flexible these dogs are. Similarly, three out of nine UKC Ultradogs were APBTs.

But back to aggression, the CDC’s Dog Bite Fact Sheet draws no conclusions based on breed.

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years… It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic… There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) concurs. For a longer read, The Pit Bull Placebo has additional facts supporting the CDC’s and ACMA’s claims.

Still, those who claim that the APBT is aggressive relies on the APBT’s dog-fighting past. But as the KC Dog Blog points out, it’s been over 70 years since the American Staffordshire Terrier was formalized, and with most State bans against dog-fighting being enacted in the 1860s, one can reasonably argue that there have been at least seven generations of dogs that were not bred for the ring, so even if a genetic disposition for canine aggression existed, it likely wouldn’t exist today.

And even if such a genetic disposition were scientifically proven to exist in most APBTs today (it hasn’t), it still wouldn’t indicate any level of human aggression, and if anything, would likely debunk any claims of human aggression at all, considering that the very practice of dog-fighting would have increased canine aggression at the expense of human aggression.

So then why does the media focus so highly on “pitbulls”? Well, for one, the media doesn’t care about the truth: sensational headlines sell papers. And really, if the average person can’t differentiate between breeds, what makes anyone think that a journalist can? In fact, DNA testing of dog breeds suggests that visual breed identification is only about 12% accurate. That’s why most shelters refer to any medium-to-large size, black dog as a “black lab mix,” and why “shepherd” mixes are unusually common. The reality is that aesthetic breed-specific traits are notoriously difficult to identify visually, which is why the media lumps so many breeds into the “pitbull” category, despite the fact that many “pitbull” dogs demonized aren’t even of the same bloodhound/terrier stock. This, of course, brings us again to the 100+lb “pitbull” stories, which are in all likelihod mastiff mixes, else dogs from “backyard breeders” who have spent years developing ill-tempered, unhealthy breeds for certain aesthetic characteristics (i.e. low, stocky build, bent-out shoulders, etc). For those who do argue genetics, note that most of these larger “pitbulls” were bred with mastiffs, which were not bread for any human bite-inhibition.

Don’t blame the breed.

The media isn’t just wrong to demonize based on breed, it’s wrong for forgetting what real investigative journalism is. If visual identification of breeds doesn’t work, then why not look for facts that do correlate between dog attacks? The recent killing of a two-year-old girl in Virginia has elements common to similar news stories.

  1. The dog was a “resident” dog, not a family dog. In other words, it was not part of the family routine, but instead left outside and not fully integrated into the family.
  2. The dog was chained up. This is generally considered a poor way to restrain a dog, is unhealthy, and yet by many dog-fighters, is considered good practice to toughen up a dog and build strength.
  3. The neighborhood the incident took place in was below the poverty line, suggesting that the family likely lacked the education, and means, to raise a dog properly. In fact, the dog was probably malnourished, and was probably not routinely taken to the vet, either.
  4. The family was obviously negligent. If a two-year old child can wander outside on its own and escape it’s mother’s watch, then imagine what little care the family had for the dog in the first place.
  5. Given the family’s financial situation, it’s highly unlikely that there were any lineage papers for the dog, so there’s absolutely no evidence of breed identification in this case, bringing us back to the limitations of visual breed assessment. For all we know, especially since there are no pictures of the dog readily available on any site reporting the attack, the dog was a chihuahua. Aside from the dog’s age, was there anything descriptive about the dog noted, other than that neighbors (who were similarly ignorant) referred to the dog as a “pitbull”?

What all of this comes down to, like many other things, is education. If we had our way, we’d require any potential dog-owners to acquire a license before adopting a dog, to prove that they have the means, and education, to properly care for their pet. (Indeed, this should probably be extended to children also, but let’s discuss one thing at a time.) With no desire to truly incorporate a dog into one’s family dynamic, and no plans to properly train and care for a pet, one does everyone a disservice, and it’s no surprise that a child has died from these circumstances. While the investigation into this last specific case is still ongoing, I wouldn’t hesitate to pass a good chunck of the blame onto the parents here, and file criminal charges against them.

In any case, let’s stop with the stereotypes: with experts concluding that there’s no evidence to justify breed specific legislation, let’s end the “pitbull” hate.Similar Posts:

  • mendax.wow v2.21. – I’ve had enough of PitBull, because despite the fact that it’s highly customizable, it’s just a pain…

  • Hey, don’t you dare call me white! – Portal of Evil News has a story about a little bit of racial-role-reversal. Sort of. It seems Solomo…

  • Why is MarsEdit heralded and ecto forgotten? – I’ve been following Daring Fireball for some time now via RSS, and most of John Gruber’s observation…

  • Gracie returns. – The Gracie dynasty is one of legend, perhaps one of the greatest fighting legends of the last centur…

  • mendax.wow version 2.02. – http://mendax.org/?p=223 Two minor changes: the included unit frames mod was switched back to Perl C…


]]> http://mendax.org/2009/10/17/enough-with-the-pitbull-hate/feed/ 0 http://mendax.org/2009/10/17/enough-with-the-pitbull-hate/ Upgrading iPhone 3.0.1. to jailbroken 3.1. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wyldkard/~3/MzNGWTUcqwU/ http://mendax.org/2009/10/05/upgrading-iphone-3-0-1-to-jailbroken-3-1/#comments Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:00:32 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1843

Since we picked up an 3GS a couple months back, our jailbroken/unlocked 2G has been sitting on a shelf collecting dust, as though a forgotten relic in the battle against Big . Now forced to use AT&T, which drops calls at an alarming rate compared to our experience with the 2G on T-Mobile, we’re still happy with our service overall, if only because the user experience, occasional dropped call or not, is still better than using any other cellular phone in the United States. Yes, that’s how great the 3GS is, and why ’s market dominance in this area continues to swell.

That said, the isn’t perfect, and one of the imperfect things about it is the fact that Big is doing its damndest to keep the user experience consistent, and in doing so, limiting the types of applications that developers can release in the AppStore. Now, admittedly, the need to jailbreak an in order to run third-party “” applications is no longer what it was when we first decided to hack our 2G two years ago. Quite simply, the AppStore has evolved into a pretty nice store, with a great selection of apps that do most everything we need to. And where it doesn’t offer a particular app that we’d like it to, in most every case, that kind of app isn’t available in Cydia either. That is, except for three that we consider must-haves, two of which we mentioned in our mendax.iphone article. Specifically, we’re talking about Backgrounder (which lets us run any application in the background), SBSettings (a quick way to toggle settings on/off), and the more recent GV Mobile (the infamous Google Voice client).

While our experience using GV Mobile hasn’t been flawless (the app crashes consistently when changing forwarding numbers), an update is on its way. With no word on whether will ultimately approve or deny the official Google Voice app, GV Mobile is our only hope for using Google Voice on our today. Having access to SBSettings again is a fresh walk down memory lane, and significantly reduces the need for us to jump into Settings to enter airplane mode, as we can now easily turn off select services when we need to save some battery life. Plus, we can now disable everything except wireless, which is nice if we want to use, say, Virgin America’s in-flight wireless (even though, realistically, we’ll almost always have our MacBook Pro with us for such trips). But Backgrounder, assuming it works as well as it did on our 2G , is the cornerstone of the must-have jailbreak scene. Finally, we can keep Pandora running while switching to Google Maps (or a GPS application), or keep active any other audio programs while fiddling with whatever other apps we need to.

But enough about why we decided to jailbreak again. Let’s get back to how. While the process for jailbreaking is amazingly easy these days for older iPhones, the 3GS has been a different story. Until very recently, jailbreaking tools developed by the Dev-Team didn’t work on the 3GS. Even now that they do, how to upgrade a non-jailbroken 3.0.x 3GS to 3.1 and put a jailbreak in place isn’t a solution readily advertised. Even the guides at iClarified aren’t entirely accurate. After spending too many hours this past weekend figuring it all out, it’s time to share our procedure.

  1. Obviously, back up your and sync it with iTunes before you begin.
  2. If you haven’t already, download the 3.1 update via iTunes, but don’t install it.
  3. If you no longer have it, download the 3.0.0 update. The iClarified guide says you can alternately use the 3.0.1 update, but it did not work for us.
  4. Jump into a terminal window, and type the following commands: 
    cd /etc/
sudo pico hosts

    You’ll have to input your admin password at this point, after which you’ll be in a simple text editor window. Use the arrow keys to get down to the bottom of the document, and add the following line at the end:

    74.208.105.171 gs..com

    Hit Ctrl+X to exit, press Y to save, and hit return to overwrite the old hosts file. What this step does is redirect iTunes to a jailbreak-friendly server for firmware updates, instead of relying on ’s servers to control which firmware updates you’re allowed to receive and use on the .

  5. Download redsn0w v0.8 and run it. You’ll be prompted for the 3.0 firmware file. Follow the prompts, and at the end of the redsn0w process, you’ll have a jailbroken 3.0.0 3GS.
  6. Now, download PwnageTool 3.1.3. Run it, and click on the expert mode icon. Select the 3GS icon, and proceed with the program. Make sure the program uses the 3.1 firmware update. Refer to Step Six of this second iClarified guide. If you are an AT&T subscriber, ensure that “Activate the phone.” remains unchecked. If you check this box, you will be unable to get new carrier settings from iTunes. Also, it’s not likely that you need to mess with the partition size, so don’t worry about it.
  7. You can follow the rest of the iClarified guide, but don’t worry about putting your in restore mode. Instead, once PwnageTool is done and has output a custom 3.1 firmware package, jump into iTunes, hold down the option key, and click on the Restore button from the screen. You will be prompted for a firmware update: choose the custom firmware file, and let iTunes do the rest. When your finally reboots, it will be jailbroken, and Cydia/Icy will be installed.
  8. You can now sync the phone from your last backup to restore all your old apps and such. You’ll also be prompted for the 5.5 AT&T carrier file, which you’ll need to install to enable MMS.

At this point, you’ll have a fully-jailbroken 3GS running at the latest firmware revision. Jump into Cydia and install jailbroken apps to your hearts content!Similar Posts:


]]> http://mendax.org/2009/10/05/upgrading-iphone-3-0-1-to-jailbroken-3-1/feed/ 0 http://mendax.org/2009/10/05/upgrading-iphone-3-0-1-to-jailbroken-3-1/ The Cataclysm cometh. Or, has it been gradually coming all along? http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wyldkard/~3/qaGs8yWHwBQ/ http://mendax.org/2009/09/30/the-cataclysm-cometh-or-has-it-been-gradually-coming-all-along/#comments Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:00:05 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1836

There’s a special place in Hell for those who destroy good lore. Sure, some lore tweaks are necessary now again just to keep a back-story consistent, and fluff moving in the right direction. Yet some designers, like George Lucas, take things too far when they butcher Star Wars by introducing midichlorians and other such nonsense. Yet we forgive even some grievances, like when Blizzard decided to arbitrarily split races in the World of along rigid lines of Alliance versus Horde. Sure, they put the usually-peaceful Tauren up against the similarly nature-loving Night Elves, but made up for it by making a druidic stronghold where both races got along peacefully. But then Blizzard did very little with actual factional warfare, so like many other things WoW, the whole idea went to shit fairly quickly.

Let’s be honest: Blizzard ignoring good lore has become ever more frequent over time, to the point where we seriously wonder whether Azeroth will just be one big hodge-podge of confused races and classes, where no one is truly unique anymore because being different is bad, even if it’s only bad because the game’s developers can’t figure out a good way to balance things effectively. Look what happened to the only two classes unique to the respective factions upon WoW’s release: by the time WoW’s first expansion came along, Paladins were offered to the Horde, and Shamans to the Alliance. One of these we could have argued as reasonable, but bringing a holy order to the typically shamanistic Horde?

There’s clearly a lack of communication between those who developed WoW’s fluff, and who’s making the game’s decisions today. Maybe that’s because many of WoW’s original developers are no longer with Blizzard, or maybe it’s because the company has just “sold out”. But clearly, there’s a discrepancy between what’s sensical in-character, and what changes have been made merely to keep millions of subscribers hooked to a grindy enterprise, particularly when any semblance of perpetuity of a character is thrown asunder when paid character modifications result in race, faction, and aesthetic changes. Simply put, a character rolled in 2004 may look totally different today, with the only consistent factor being class, and the role of that class may have changed over the years as well.

So what’s bugging us this time around? Well, with the Cataclysm expansion announced, Blizzard is adding two new races to WoW: Goblins for Horde, and Worgen for Alliance. We’ll even disregard any objections to these inclusions by the truly hardcore lore zealots, but instead move directly on to class/race combinations. When we began writing this, we thought we’d do a run-down of every class and prod at the allowable races upon Cataclysm’s launch, but that exercise quickly became too painful to finish. But we’ll still mention some highlights, just to illustrate the sheer stupidity of it all.

  • Everyone can be a Death Knight. Nice, dumb precedent, Blizzie.
  • The Undead now commune with the animal kingdom. Undead druids next?
  • Holy Cows. LOL.

On the one hand, we can now create guilds based almost entirely on one race, though arguably that was doable before. So that leaves us with the other hand, which points at the same old sad story of Blizzard watering down WoW in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Five years ago, not only was WoW a well-polished DIKU, but it was a well-polished DIKU with unique toons, limited by their choice of race, class, and spec, not to mention slight aesthetic tweaks. Today, everyone of a given class is practically the same, with some racials no longer being unique (ala the Priest racials), and players able to settle on easy race decisions because there are too many race options for most classes. Compounded with the fact that existing players can funnel funds from WoW’s broken economy to new toons for an enormous advantage over new or returning players, and the stage is set for the casual WoW player (”the grinder”) to have too much say in WoW’s continued development. Never mind that dual-specs further water-down the character building process.

It’s sad, really, because while Cataclysm is a snazzy attraction to everyone who’s played WoW before thanks to the focus on “evolving” old lands, WoW as a whole is still on the slippery slope to trashville. It’s like the X-Files of the video game world, with a strong start, a great following, and an ultimate decline into obscurity.Similar Posts:


]]> http://mendax.org/2009/09/30/the-cataclysm-cometh-or-has-it-been-gradually-coming-all-along/feed/ 1 http://mendax.org/2009/09/30/the-cataclysm-cometh-or-has-it-been-gradually-coming-all-along/ The Tweetie 2 fiasco: blame it on Apple? http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wyldkard/~3/y3NthT6liu0/ http://mendax.org/2009/09/29/the-tweetie-2-fiasco-blame-it-on-apple/#comments Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:00:31 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1832

The dramarama wheel landed on Tweetie 2 recently, to the tone of much annoyance regarding the fact that the Tweetie 2 upgrade won’t be free to existing Tweetie users. That is to say, Tweetie 2 is a totally different program than Tweetie, and as such, will require another $3 purchase for those who want to use the latest Tweetie version. That’s not to say that users of Tweetie will be incapable of still using their Twitter client of choice, merely that the developer, atebits, will clearly be focusing on Tweetie 2 users rather than spending most of their time addressing problems with Tweetie “1″. So naturally, buyers of Tweetie may be a little peeved, since they feel neglected and betrayed, particularly when atebits could offer a discount to existing Tweetie users, or even simpler, make Tweetie 2 a free upgrade instead of a new app (albeit at the cost of atebit’s development time).

Perhaps the hoopla is mainly grounded in the naming of Tweetie 2. Clearly, atebits wants to capitalize on the success of Tweetie, though naming Tweetie 2 something different may not have gotten everone as riled up, since a clearer line would be drawn in the sand. After all, it’d be easier to convince people to buy a new Twitter client than a newer version of a client they already paid for. Sure, the argument against a sense-of-entitlement is a simple one to make: atebits clearly spent a lot of time building Tweetie 2 from the ground up, and as a business, they wants to make money where they can (and not where they can’t, thus the continued free-ness of Tweetie for OS X).

And maybe that’s where the second problem lies: blame it on self-entitlement or not, there’s a reason many Tweetie users are upset: the precedent for major upgrades to apps (as well as like Tweetie for OS X), at no cost to previous buyers, was set long ago. Developers of apps like Twittelator Pro, for example, have added just as many features as Tweetie 2 will offer, and arguments of Tweetie 2’s superior useability aside, there are many other apps that have offered iterative, substantial updates over time, at an arguable loss to the developers who continue supporting purchases long after they were made. Now that’s no fault of atebits: they’re clearly trying to break free from the way things are generally being done on the AppStore, in such a way that they can afford to work on apps full-time, whereas many other developers may simply be working on their apps as a side-job. Neither way is inherently right, it’s just that Tweetie users are used to things moving in a direction that favors their AppStore expenditures.

It’s really not a matter of having to shell out a whole $3 more just for the update. We’d argue that if atebits made Tweetie 2 a free upgrade and kept certain features unlockable only through in-app purchases, that they could more easily convince many dissenters to spend that $3 for fancy new features. But instead, they made a new app, which will probably earn atebits a few more bucks in the long-run (since in-app purchases generally make less than stand-alone products), and though that’s certainly a valid move for a business trying to make some extra moolah, it somehow feels wrong, as though atebits is not being honest to consumers. That’s especially true for people who buy Tweetie today, only to find that their purchase will barely be supported once Tweetie 2 comes out.

So the hoopla is an emotional reaction to a problem not with atebits, but the AppStore process, highlighting yet another deficiency with the AppStore’s mechanism for enabling long-term application support by developers who make a living writing, and maintaining, apps. The only real fault we can find with atebits is not using the in-app purchase mechanism to support the transition from Tweetie to Tweetie 2, but maybe there’s a legitimate reason that atebits couldn’t go that route. (Any developers want to comment on this?)

Ultimately, if Tweetie 2 offers the same features as Twittelator Pro (with TweetPress support for ), we’ll probably drop another $3, knowing full well that that $3 we spent earlier was effectively thrown away (Tweetie offered too little functionality by the time we picked it up). What we don’t want to see is this kind of practice being repeated again and again, however. Rather, if there’s an obstacle to using in-app purchases to charge for major app revisions, then needs to address this issue pronto, else this won’t be the first time that app buyers get all up-in-arms over the Tweetie 2 upgrade process. As it stands, the process not only angers consumers, but negatively affects app developers also.

09/30/2009 Update: According to atebit’s response to an inquiry by The iPhone Blog, the in-app mechanism wasn’t appropriate.

If all I were adding were features, then the in-app purchase route would have been an option (but then again, if all I were offering were features, I’d probably release it as a free update). Tweetie 2 is a fresh start, 100% rewritten, shares no code with the original . The only thing they have in common is the name.

That doesn’t entirely answer our question though. Does require a minimum amount of code to be the same between app updates? If not, then Tweetie 2 could have new features enabled with an in-app purchase, despite it being rewritten from the ground-up. Aside from the extra development time needed to include the in-app purchase functionality, is there an -imposed obstacle here?Similar Posts:


]]> http://mendax.org/2009/09/29/the-tweetie-2-fiasco-blame-it-on-apple/feed/ 0 http://mendax.org/2009/09/29/the-tweetie-2-fiasco-blame-it-on-apple/ A rough introduction to Warmachine/Hordes. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wyldkard/~3/UUxzzsDmEhY/ http://mendax.org/2009/08/20/a-rough-introduction-to-warmachinehordes/#comments Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:30:47 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1826

Late last year, we jumped back into tabletop wargaming, and though we mentioned this pursuit earlier, we didn’t clarify what game in particular we opted to invest in. We’re still not at the point where we can field a solid (and finished) army, but we nonetheless find ourselves casually plowing through Warmachine/Hordes material, from the fluff in the books to the routine updates in No Quarter magazine. For those considering the hobby, here’s a brief writeup of why we picked Warmachine/Hordes, and what we learned about the various factions.

Why Warmachine/Hordes?

The decision to go with Privateer Press’ games wasn’t too difficult to make. For one, we wanted to pursue a fantasy game, and Warmachine’s steampunk world (the Iron Kingdoms) was quite attractive. We found the factions rather interesting, didn’t feel that the miniatures were too “cartoony,” and generally considered the sculpts to be excellent, with (mostly) flexible painting options. Since Warmachine and Hordes are new games compared to the reigning king, Warhammer, there was the added advantage of having a smaller unit and rulebook selection. Plus, the Warmachine rules were well-recognized as being fast-paced with numerous combat options, where players tend to field much smaller armies than what Warhammer is known for. With Hordes as a compatible game, there are effectively nine factions to choose from, with a 10th on its way (and arguably an 11th, too), which only adds to a player’s flexibility to choose a play-style.

The core mechanic (if you want to call it that) behind Warmachine/Hordes mirrors the background story arc of one of our own preliminary game designs of yesteryear, albeit with some modifications. In short, central to every army are powerful spell casters (”warcasters” in Warmachine, and “warlocks” in Hordes). These spell casters are tied closely to large behemoths, with which they have an almost symbiotic relationship. In Warmachine, warcasters generate focus (ala mana), which fuels steam-powered mecha called “warjacks.” In Hordes, warlocks “leach” fury (again, like mana) from hulking “warbeasts,” which they use to fuel their spells. (In other words, warcasters are to warjacks what warlocks are to warbeasts.) While these units are central to an army, there are also numerous supporting units like infantry and solos, which round out a particular force.

A nice aspect to the reliance on warcasters/warlocks is that they are interchangeble. That is to say, an army list is built around a particular warcaster/warlock, and simply swapping one caster for another can drastically change how a given army is played. So while each faction may be geared towards a particular play-style, that play-style can be modified in subtle, or even drastic, ways. This flexibility is a particularly alluring element to a game with fairly unique lore that doesn’t entirely rely on the “traditional” fantasy races and background.

The Factions

Deciding to move ahead with Warmachine/Hordes, we came upon the typical struggle of deciding on a faction to play with. This was troublesome in itself because all the Warmachine/Hordes factions are attractive in their own right, so we had to balance aesthetic tastes with typical faction strategies/play-style, knowing that the latter could be adjusted somewhat based on our caster choices. Our understanding of the various factions, summarized, follows.

Cryx: It seems that almost every fantasy wargame needs to have an undead faction, and that’s the role the Cryx fill. Their fluff includes something about a dragon powering their undead ways, and this fantasy element is perhaps more intrinsic to the Cryx than to other Warmachine factions. This is most obvious in the fact that their warjacks are not just steam-powered machines, but are undead monstrosities borne of both metal and bone. Overall, their troops are among the most fragile of the Warmachine factions, but their reach across the battlefield is unrivaled among them as well. Using “arc nodes,” Cryx warcasters can “channel” their spells through distant warjacks, effectively extending a warcaster’s spell’s range considerably. This is important, because the Cryx rely on magical attacks more than the other Warmachine factions. Often describes as the “dirty tricks” faction, Cryx armies are known for their ability to debuff enemies, deny opposing strategies, and conduct “assassination runs” against enemy casters. On the tabletop, Cryx models include rather top-heavy warjacks that are known to often detach from their bases. That, and the fact that their theme makes customzing their colour scheme a bit more difficult compared to the other factions, is why we didn’t choose to play a Cryx army, even though their units do look awesome, and play even better.

Cygnar: The protagonist faction of Warmachine can best be defined with the phrase “high-fantasy meets steampunk.” The Cygnar are half knights, and half steam-powered gunsmiths. They somehow got a tesla influence too, which means they have electric-powered ‘jacks, and Force-lightning-like powers. It all makes for a catchy aesthetic that’s clearly based on medieval Europe with a touch of cowboy, and wholly defines what steam-powered warmachines are all about. Overall, Cygnar are a solid mix of melee and ranged units, and appears to be a very flexible, baseline race, ala the “human” archetype of most RPGs. That said, they’re not entirely a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none faction – they’re the top single-target ranged threat in Warmachine overall, and both this fact, and their baseline flexibility, makes them a solid faction to play.

Khador: If you took the Soviet Union and imagined them in a steampunk setting, it pretty much sums up what Khador are like. Tactically, Khador are all about brute-force, blitzkrieg-like strategies, and in this respect, they have a very “German” mechanic to them as well. Rather than field light warjacks at all, Khador rely on heavily-armored warjacks that plow through enemy defenses. They have no arc-nodes to speak of (with one exception being for a particular warcaster), which speaks much to the Khador attitude; even Khador warcasters are comfortable mixing it up in melee, and though complimented by select, powerful ranged infantry units, the Khador are a predominantly melee-themed faction.

Menoth: The Protectorate of Menoth is an inquisition-themed army, making use of similarly-medieval-themed warjacks bent with holy guidance. Menoth troops excel at ranged area-of-effect damage, and can sacrifice their own troops to bolster their fighting prowess. By many, this Warmachine faction is considered the hardest to play, but has some of the coolest-looking units in the game, too. The Protectorate is known for its ability to steadfastly hold ground, which is great for scenario games where objectives must be held.

Mercenaries: Describing the mercenaries as a faction is only a half-truth. In reality, the mercenary umbrella consists of numerous units (warcasters, warjacks, infantry, and solos) that can be used with other faction armies. However, each mercenary unit can have faction restrictions regarding who it will work for, so while some mercenary units will work for every faction, others may only work for one. That said, players can also opt to field an all-mercenary army, but for balancing purposes, fielding such an army has obvious restrictions. The fluff explanation is simple: not all mercenaries get along, so philosophical agreements determine “sub-factions” within the mercenary population. So, just as every mercenary unit may have restrictions on which of the four major factions it can work for, every mercenary unit may have restrictions on which mercenary “charter” it can be part of. Effectively, a charter determines which mercenary units can be used together to be played as a faction. Privateer Press has published all the approved charters to date, and there are currently about a handful of them to pick from, each of which has a general play-style with a unifying aesthetic, just as with any of the major factions. Since Mercenary units pretty much fill the spectrum of play-styles, they’re good to pick up both to field as a faction, or to compliment another faction.

Retribution of Scyrah: One of the nice things about Privateer Press is that they’re working hard to better their games. This is embodied in their recent beta test of new Warmachine rules, which will be published in 2010. In short, the new rules address the fact that Warmachine has, in the recent past, become very infantry-specific, and the new rules hope to bring balance back towards the warjack side of the house (like Hordes and its warbeasts). In addition to these new rules also redefining some of the old unit abilities/functions, comes a new Warmachine faction known commonly as “the Retribution.” Unlike the other factions, which are primarily human-populated, the Retribution is made up of what can best be described as high-elves, albeit with somewhat of a science-fiction aesthetic welded onto the typical magic-wielding-elf archetype. Though we’re not personally fond of the new aesthetic (thinking it’s too far from Warmachine’s steampunk roots), it certainly offers more flavor to the Iron Kingdoms. Retribution rules are already available from the latest two editions of No Quarter magazine, and faction units will be available for sale next month, along with the Retribution faction book. Early reports suggest that Retribution armies are quick to traverse the battlefield, and great at assasinating casters.

Circle or Orboros: The Circle embodies the shamanistic, druidic approach to faction : it’s units are comprised of druidic spell-casters, monoliths brought to life out of sticks and stones (which, ironically, break bones), and other beasts like werewolves and satyrs, as well as human cannibals known as the Tharn. The Circle is the most magic-using faction in Hordes, and is strategically founded on hit-and-run tactics. This guerilla warfare strategy is aided through the Circle’s high levels of mobility, made possible thanks to units that enable teleporting on the battlefield, and the fact that all Circle units can traverse rough terrain unhindered. Like the Cryx, the Circle is generally made up of fragile units, who need to avoid direct, prolonged combat, but can adequately approach this restriction by using terrain to their advantage. Also like Cryx, the Circle’s movement advantages make them effective at assassination attempts.

Legion of Everblight: If an undead faction is a necessity, then shortly thereafter must come a demonic faction, and to this end, Everblight fits the bill. Like the Cryx, the fluff here is based on a dragon lord, but this time around, it’s the spirit of a dead dragon that has “blighted” denizens and made them servents of Everblight. Accompanying these corrupted souls are what can best be described as dragon-spawn – eyeless monsters that make up Everblights warbeast population. Unlike what we might expect from dragon progeny, however, Everblight warbeasts are mostly smaller in stature, and even include “lesser” warbeasts designed to swarm an enemy force. This means that Everblight forces are very fragile compared to other factions, and rely heavily on a “first strike” opportunity. Everblight armies tend to excel heavily in ranged attacks, and this, above anything, is their forte. Because of how quickly they can (and must) traverse the battlefield (thanks in part to winged creatures), Everblight armies are also known to effect successful assassination attempts. Rounding out the draconic units are blighted elves and ogrun, though we wouldn’t be surprised to find other blighted races represented among Everblight units in the future. It is often said that Orboros and Everblight tactics can be similar at times, with the main difference being that unlike Orboros units, there is no significant synergy between the abilities of Everblight units, as they tend to act alone, albeit as part of a larger war machine (pun intended).

Skorne: Often described as the most “Warmachine-like” of the Hordes factions, the Skorne are a well-balanced, regimented force. By “regimented,” we refer to their well-balanced army composition. Indeed, as the “evil-fascist” army in Hordes, the Skorne have good melee troops, good defensive troops, and good ranged troops. In other words, their unit synergies are well balanced, which means they have a very structured attack pattern, with offensive troops ahead, and defensive troops protecting their ranged units in back. The Skorne motif is based heavily on Asian culture, with the core Skorne race looking a lot like nosferatu clad in samurai armour. Perhaps even moreso than the Legion, the Skorne are the “evil” race of Hordes, who have enslaved basilisks, cyclops, and huge titans as warbeasts. Because of their armour, we’d also argue that the Skorne are the most customizeable faction of Hordes for painting, whereas the other races rely primarily on skin-colour changes to customize appearance significantly.

Trollbloods: Here we have the protagonist faction of Hordes, based loosely on a celtic theme. Trollblood armies consist of a number of troll types, from pygmy trolls to huge dire trolls. Aesthetically, we consider the Trollbloods the nicest of the Hordes factions, even if the units are all troll-ish at heart. Trollbloods are said to share the same meta-game as Khador, which means they’re all about rushing into combat and using brute force to dish out the hurt. In this respect, they’re a rather straightforward faction to play, but they are also very flexible. Rather than having to force a particular defensive strategy on the opponent, Trollbloods excel at buffing their units in response to an enemy’s play-style, which means that they can address most threats adequately. Limited in long-range attacks, Trollbloods have enormous staying-power, as most of their units can regenerate health over time. This means that Trollbloods are great at defending a battlefield location, so like Menoth armies, Trollbloods excel in objective-based scenarios.

Minions: Minions are the counterpart to Warmachine mercenaries, and this is the arguable 11th faction we mentioned earlier. Minions aren’t yet playable as their own faction, because there’s no Hordes equivalent to mercenary charters yet. Nonetheless, we can fully expect Privateer Press to develop Hordes minions in this same direction, and with new Hordes beta rules coming out sometime next year, we can probably expect to see all-minion armies then as well. (We may even see a whole new Hordes faction by then.)

Similar Posts:


]]> http://mendax.org/2009/08/20/a-rough-introduction-to-warmachinehordes/feed/ 2 http://mendax.org/2009/08/20/a-rough-introduction-to-warmachinehordes/ iPhone as computer, revisited. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wyldkard/~3/aMAD0QwK-yA/ http://mendax.org/2009/08/07/iphone-as-computer-revisited/#comments Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:30:16 +0000 WyldKard http://wyldkard.com/?p=1805

When the came out, we were one of the few who didn’t parade around the idea that it was the cell-phone Messiah. Heck, the didn’t do much that our Danger Sidekick didn’t, though the user experience was admittedly cleaner. But with OS 2.0 and the realization of an open AppStore (with some issues, admittedly), the user experience is as varied as the thousands of applications available. That’s why we weren’t so much taken aback by Meg Hourihan’s comment about whether or not she would purchase an 3GS: upgrading the was akin to upgrading her computer. John Gruber was quick to confirm this idea:

A decade ago, my first PowerBook was a secondary machine to the desktop anchored at my desk. Now, my main machine is my MacBook Pro, but it feels a bit like an anchor now. My mobile secondary computer is my .

And now that we have an 3GS, we too acknowledge the shift in computing : on the very day we activated our 3GS, our MacBook Pro’s screen refused to turn back on after we set the 3GS up, and rebooted after the most recent Safari 4 patch. It turns out that the logic board needed to be replaced, since there was a known issue with the NVidia graphics card in our 17″ version of the MacBook Pro. While the repairs were done at an Store an hour away, it still took a couple days to get the computer back, and in that time, we relied almost entirely on the for our -related tasks after work. And we weren’t very disappointed with the experience. In fact, in many ways, reliance on the 3GS versus the MacBook Pro was a relief: the device was always on us or nearby.

Now we’re hardly saying that the 3GS is an appropriate stand-in for a full-fledged computer. We still maintain that the is a poor device for inputting of most meaningful text, which is why we use the as a reader more than we rely on it to respond to people outside Twitter and SMS. But for this former purpose, the 3GS shines, because it’s snappy in most every sense of the word, and the experience of using it on the road (via 3G) is pretty much the same as using it at home on wi-fi. And that consistency makes the shine. For many, with greater storage (to hold all one’s songs, movies, and photos) and a bluetooth keyboard, the could theoretically become a replacement for the average home computer user almost entirely.

So changed were we by our forced use of the 3GS for nearly a week, we decided to offer our fixed MacBook Pro on craigslist. Not to rid ourselves of the anchor for our home computer use, but because we now find the device to be overkill for what we need to get done at home, and we see little reason not to downgrade to a smaller anchor now. Indeed, ’s “low-end” lineup is now ever-more attractive to us, and for the limited computer needs we have at home, we can finally agree that a 17″ monitor isn’t much of a necessity now that we’re not tied to an online game that benefits from it. Thanks in great part to AppStore apps, and the rise of mobile web pages tailored to the ’s display, there’s an easy case to be made for ’s replacing netbooks and many common-use notebooks/desktops. Again, the only obvious items holding the back from becoming a true computer replacement is its poor input mechanic and limited storage space, but the former can easily be remedied with technology that appears to have green-lighted with better Bluetooth gadget operability.

We’re still holding out for a mid-way solution between the and MacBook, and we’re hoping that the iTablet fits the bill. But in the meantime, we’re only seeing use of our 3GS go up, while our MacBook is getting lonelier by the day.Similar Posts:


]]> http://mendax.org/2009/08/07/iphone-as-computer-revisited/feed/ 0 http://mendax.org/2009/08/07/iphone-as-computer-revisited/ Apple to advance iPhone gaming, not join console fray. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wyldkard/~3/_l4qRDtAkeU/ http://mendax.org/2009/08/06/apple-to-advance-iphone-gaming-not-join-console-fray/#comments Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:30:25 +0000 WyldKard http://wyldkard.com/?p=1698

Despite ’s sordid foray into the video market with the ill-fated Pippin, TUAW’s Mike Schramm believes that is willing to give console another go. His speculation is based in large part on a piece by Erik Sherman at BNET, in which Sherman notes various patents filed, and various individuals hired, as evidence of ’s console initiative.

No TV console aspirations.

We’ll address Schramm first, by noting that an escapade into console--land would be a horribly poor move for . ’s success with the , and later the , was due to them being able to put a decently-priced but amazingly polished device into consumer’s hands. Before the , mp3 players weren’t particularly notable aside from the fact that they existed at all. pretty much defined the portable mp3 market, and arguably, created the mainstream movement towards legal mp3 downloads. With the , entered a market densely packed with crappy , where even the best sported comparably poor user interfaces and little real online functionality. With the AppStore, blew the doors open on downloadable content, and once again redefined a market, now being emulated by contenders.

The console market is nothing like the portable or cell phone markets were before got involved. The console market consist of only three key players, all of whom do a great job at building systems, and all of whom have significant industry backing in the form of third-party titles. Plus, all have an indy developer component, and significant mindshare among consumers.

That’s not to say that couldn’t be successful by entering the console wars, but their timing would be way off. Releasing a console before circa 2013, when Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony will reveal their latest offerings, would be dooming an console to irrelevance in only four years time. Furthermore, would fight an uphill battle, akin to what Microsoft dealt with when they unveiled the original . Only, ’s experience with the mainstream market (Microsoft had years of experience dealing with PC ), is virtually null prior to the proliferation of games. Simply put, the console marketplace is too volatile a place for to push itself into – the competition is too fierce, so why take an unnecessary risk? is better suited to define a market with much less competition, and the handheld market is a prime target.

The accidental success.

We’re not so sure that expected to be successful with . Surely, expected to find games developed for the , but titles from big-name publishers using big-name IP? Maybe even built the to be capable of running games with decent graphics and framerates, but the very lack of input options makes us question ’s expectations that the might become a veritable Gameboy and PSP competitor. But here we are: leveraging the AppStore’s framework, the is able to market pretty amazing games via a convenient, cutting-edge distribution model, all for a much cheaper price than games released for the Gameboy or PSP. Like the proliferation of the Wii, is build on a solid foundation of more casual titles, but as time goes on, we’re now seeing more and more “mature” titles requiring more of a user’s focus. It’s one thing for to have given Mac a mere head-nod in the past, it’s another for to dismiss a clearly growing phenomenon. So, will continue embracing , and that’s at the heart of Sherman’s observations.

The acquisition of Bob Dreblin, Raka Koduri, Mark Papermaster, and Richard Teversham, might not even indicate assembling a “dream team” for the market, but let’s assume this to be true. Dreblin’s contribution to the Gamecube CPU may be most telling: the Gamecube was underpowered compared to offerings from Microsoft and Sony, but the thing was admittedly compact. If anything, the rest of the team would play into embedded just as easily as they would in traditional console , not to mention ’s acquisition of PA Semi and their investment in PowerVR. If ’s going to be serious about , they’ll want to develop specific for that purpose, especially since this kind of specialized will still be able to power the thousands of non- applications. By controlling the supply chain specifically, ensures that the competition won’t be building similar products, and furthermore, secures its from additional vulnerabilities.

Sherman makes some good observations about ’s patent filings. If anything, it should be pretty clear that is looking to link and outside media. Much as iTunes can suggest based on one’s existing library, application 20080076495 proposes similar functionality, only rather than just making recommendations, games could identify appropriate to play based on a user’s preference. For example, a scene in a game calling for fast-paced, action-packed combat, may query a user’s library for metal or hard rock , and based on the user’s ratings, will play a top song in that category. In other words, games will be minimally tailored to suit the user’s tastes based on other media they own. The patent application, at absolute minimum, forms an extension to the iTunes store, in that games may be recommended based on songs a user owns: lots of metal songs may mean a user prefers more action-oriented games, for instance.

The other patent applications Sherman identifies give further insight into ’s direction with games, but it should be pretty clear by now that is looking at solidifying the game user-base. Arguably, is already ahead of the game with their application distribution model, as Nintendo and Sony are now moving ahead with their own online stores. The difference is that the is a more flexible system, is nearly always connected to the , and meets an application price-point easily suited for growth. By the time the AppStore starts including games costing $20 or higher, the handheld market will be a shitstorm of competition, because will have become a major contender well before that, assuming the next version further advances a long-term plan (and the 3GS appears to herald this). At that time, Nintendo and Sony better have stepped up their game, because unlike with the traditional console market, the handheld market is far more malleable, especially when the ’s chief success is drawing spontaneous buyers into a web of easily-accessible, easily-downloadable content.

So for those longing for an console, look no further than your . While it’s already successfully integrated the and cell phone, it’s now looking to devour your friendly neighborhood Gameboy, too.Similar Posts:


]]> http://mendax.org/2009/08/06/apple-to-advance-iphone-gaming-not-join-console-fray/feed/ 1 http://mendax.org/2009/08/06/apple-to-advance-iphone-gaming-not-join-console-fray/ Dictionary censoring: Apple’s gone too far. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wyldkard/~3/JSVRAXtcODA/ http://mendax.org/2009/08/05/dictionary-censoring-apples-gone-too-far/#comments Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:30:15 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1819

Look, we love ’s products, particularly the and the great achievements that has wrought with the AppStore. And though we anticipated some problems with an AT&T/-controlled app market, in which either company could brazenly ban an application for seemingly no reason, we’ve mostly been happy with the freedom that developers have had. Sure, there was the occasional story about a tethering application pulled from the AppStore, or apps being pulled that “duplicated” the functionality of the core apps, but even these grievances were (questionably) reasonable. Yet if a slippery slope is to be found anywhere, it’s beneath the feet of the app reviewers at , whose rejections border on the comical. So it is for the Ninjawords application, in which a dictionary required censoring before it could be sold in the AppStore. Indeed, an article at the Onion could be no more amusing, but as this is real, it must similarly be true that the app store reviewers are either members of the religious righ (whose hypocrisy is clearly prevalent, since some of the banned words appear in the bible itself), else are teenage twits who want nothing more than to strike a nerve with developers, as they somehow delight in creating ridiculous, unecessary drama.

Sure, the AppStore is no T-Mobile Sidekick marketplace, where nearly every good application is never approved for users to download (and if they are, rarely free). But come on, , this behavior is inexcusable. It’s not even that the Ninjawords rejection is based on any semblance of reality: common sense alone should dictate the application’s publication. To even think about designating a dictionary as a mature product (even after the censoring) is preposterous, considering that dictionaries reside in nearly every home, classroom, and library in America. This is a case of bullying for the sake of bullying and nothing else; isn’t protecting children, customers, or anyone else with these kinds of application rejections. If anything, is simply driving some developers away from the AppStore, where they’ll probably just adopt a different platform instead. That may not be troublesome to now, what with the ’s tremendous following, but why accelerate momentum to the contrary, even if that momentum is small?

It would be quite insightful to discover what kind of guidance AppStore reviewers get from higher-ups, and what kind of training these reviewers get in the first place. Because right now, we think most high-school interns would do a better job.Similar Posts:


]]> http://mendax.org/2009/08/05/dictionary-censoring-apples-gone-too-far/feed/ 0 http://mendax.org/2009/08/05/dictionary-censoring-apples-gone-too-far/ Point of the iTablet? Try these variants. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wyldkard/~3/MY8rGcw_lX0/ http://mendax.org/2009/08/03/point-of-the-itablet-try-these-variants/#comments Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:30:18 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1813

All this talk about the iTablet, and we’re still confused as to what the ultimate point is. Not about the talk itself, but about the reasoning to release an iTablet in the first place, novelty factor aside. The Blog was keen on pointing out the OS possibilities for the rumoured iTablet, and that consideration will clearly define where the device fits into ’s lineup, and what kind of consumer it will target. We thought more on the subject of use, and came up with a couple iTablet versions worth discussing.

The Browser

Those in the “large ” camp are undoubtedly browsers. That is to say, they’re the exact market the Touch and go after when advertises mobile Safari and video features. So why a new device? Because as good a mobile entertainment center it is, the Touch/ isn’t ideal for sitting back on a couch and watching a movie. Granted, that’s what TVs are for, but the iTablet Browser will enable users to take their movies and television shows to places their TVs can’t go: camping, the hotel room, the back-yard, etc. In other words, the iTablet Browser is exactly what the Touch is, albeit bigger, which means less eye strain, easier-to-navigate web pages, etc.

While a niche target for sure, the iTablet Browser could be the most basic of all netbook-like devices: targeting the most casual of casual computer users. In other words, this device would be for the many grandparents out there who only need to get online to check their e-mail to receive pictures of their grandkids, or to folks who do little more than surf the web. It’s the perfect dumb-terminal for people who don’t do enough traveling to justify the small screen real-estate of the Touch, or don’t need a portable phone-computer like the . What’s more, with a screen able to run multiple apps, or even customized apps like a large Kindle application, the iTablet Browser could becomes a cross between the Kindle (albeit with no e-ink display), an Touch, and an AppleTV. In other words, it would be the ultimate throw-in-your-briefcase computer.

The beauty of this device is in its low- requirements. The iTablet Browser needn’t be much faster than the 3GS (though likely will be since its size will be larger), and there’s little need to enable the device to run more than one application at a time, much like with the Touch. Thus, the OS would likely be the same (with minor modifications), and the overall price of the device wil be low.

The Secretary

Moving up a notch, the iTablet Secretary addresses one of our oldest complaints about the : the lack of a solid input mechanism. The iTablet has the additional real-estate we need to adequately review our textual input, but at its core, a bloated Touch still doesn’t have a good way to type. So, the iTablet Secretary will have to either have a bluetooth keyboard, some sort of slideout keyboard, or fancy handwriting recognition ala the legendary Newton. Plus, for bloggers, students, and other multi-taskers, there would need to be an ability to quickly switch between a note-taking application and a browsing screen (mobile Safari, an eBook application, etc.) This could be as simple as beefing up the Notes app and letting it run in the background just like the app, but with this and handwriting recognition, we’d likely be looking at faster . Plus, there’s the whole issue of a stylus, which we wouldn’t discount outright, but it’d still be a questionable move for , since their reliance on new capacitative touchscreens left the stylus behind. Of course, the iTablet Secretary could work by just letting users write letters with their fingers, which seems like the most logical move at this point.

Obviously, the cost of the iTablet Secretary would be greater than the iTablet Browser, but it would have many more uses, and target many more consumers. The cost needn’t be much higher, however, since adequate handwriting recognition was done years ago in portable devices. In fact, one would have to wonder why wouldn’t release the iTablet Secretary over the iTablet Browser given that its requirements wouldn’t be vastly greater, what with considerations being the primary difference. Indeed, a modified Touch OS would work wonderfully here, too.

The Excelsior

The ideal ultra-casual, portable PC, is embodied in our idea of the iTablet Excelsior. In short, it’s a full-on computer with the regular version of OS X. Like the MacBook Air, it would have an attachable SuperDrive as an accessory, and would work with bluetooth devices like keyboards and mice (in addition to maintaining handwriting recognition). It would have a USB port, and maybe even a video-out port. It wouldn’t be particularly powerful, with specs at or below the basic MacBook, but it would easily handle all the tasks the iTablet Secretary could handle. In short, it’s a MacBook Air, sans keyboard.

But why go this route? Some may argue against this because of possible cannibalzing of MacBook sales, but we could make the same argument for the iTablet Browser or iTablet Secretary cannibalizing Touch sales. The reality is that in their current state, the Touch and are mere extensions of the home PC. That is to say, one needs a PC or Mac to sync with, and one needs iTunes to similarly manage media. Without a home computer, the Touch and are artificially limited. The iTablet Excelsior, however, could serve not only as the backbone for one’s existing Touch and , but for those only wanting only one super-portable device for media browsing, the iTablet Excelsior is it.

In other words, for an all-in-one solution for the average student, the MacBook may be the way to go, and maybe the iTablet Excelsior, with all its options (superdrive, keyboard, mouse, external display) would dwarf the MacBook in price, but by itself, it could squeeze well below the 1k mark and still offer a great niche computing experience. In other words, it wouldn’t cannibalize MacBook sales (effectively being part of the lineup), and would serve as the Mac Mini of the notebook world; it would be extensible enough to still offer a great home-computing experience, while working great as an on-the-go computer for class, managing warehouse inventory, or just blogging from the local coffee shop.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, will be targeting some sort of niche with the iTablet, but just which niche will it go for? Will the iTablet cut into would-be Touch customers, or would-be MacBook customers? And can it carve a definitive place for itself in the market? The hype behind the device will no doubt steamroll it into the mindshare of computer users, but only its practicality will determine its success, and save it from the fate of ’s hobby venture, the AppleTV. We tend to think that the potential for a surefire hit is there, but even as gadget aficionados, we’d be hard-pressed to justify the purchase of anything less than the iTablet Excelsior, considering we already carry an and use a MacBook.Similar Posts:


]]> http://mendax.org/2009/08/03/point-of-the-itablet-try-these-variants/feed/ 1 http://mendax.org/2009/08/03/point-of-the-itablet-try-these-variants/