I can't see how that wasn't what you were saying there, but okay.
Nobody said they were first to build a device with a capacitative screen, just they were first to market with an OS purpose designed for them. E.g. the multitouch pinch-to-zoom stuff that wowed the audiences.
Other phone OSs were more capable than the early versions of iOS, but they didn't have any of the gee-whiz effects, and adding a capacitative screen to an OS that didn't support multitouch actually made them worse, not better to use..
First with capacitive touchscreen you say? That's interesting...
Nobody actually said that, and I am (and was) aware of the Prada's hardware capabilities. It was an excellent design, and I have no doubt at all that Apple paid it a LOT of attention when they were planning the iPhone, but...
The OS and software didn't match the hardware design. Running an OS written in Flash on top of WinCE very quickly exposed the limitations of both of those products, including no possibility of multitouch.
did you even use a so called smartphone phone before the iphone?
I did. I developed for Palm, WinCE, Psion/Symbian and Nokia N770/800 (including for SIP/Skype calls) etc before the iPhone as well.
The single biggest differentiator between iPhone and its predecessors was the capacitative screen. Everybody in the business knew it was coming, and would change interfaces. Even Microsoft was experimenting with the multitouch Surface, but Apple were fastest to get in with a phone that had multitouch and dispensed with the stylus (needed for resistive screens).
They did well, and with Fingerworks, managed to patent some of the early multitouch ideas, but they were not especially novel concepts, even at that time.
I wonder how long before we accept that we will have to wear batteries to power the MRI that reads out brainwaves and turns them into text. It will happen.
This is a case of "silly grandma" Not Apple's problem.
I believe you're thinking the way Apple's thinking. It's great you're on the same page with them.
Me, I'm thinking about what it'd be like if my mum or dad died and left me their documents in a storage facility. I'd want to be able to read their recipes, look at the photo albums, read letters they'd saved. I'd expect to be able to do that with reasonable ease by providing the same level of proof I'd need to take possession of all the other goods they left to me.
Pretty much what the family has already provided.
If the vendor then chose to deny me access and insist I get a court order, I'd be unhappy, angry and deeply disappointed. And I very certainly would never use that vendor again, and I'd warn everybody I could to stay away from that vendor.
So I think we all owe Josh Grant a vote of thanks for speaking up and warning us about this heartless company. Anyone who values their family's thoughts and images should avoid buying their product, and warn their friends and family away from it as well.
Yep. That sounds like a working security model.
If Apple can't plan for a common contingency like this in their security model, then they shouldn't choose to be in control of other people's property.
One way or the other, there will be problematic edge cases - and this sort of thing is one of them.
It may be problematic for Apple, but it's not the family's responsibility to resolve it.
Apple chose to hold the keys to other people's valuables. They are responsible for making them available when needed.
Apple is right, your mother gave you the iPad, not the data on it.
The data does not belong to Apple.
The iPad does not belong to Apple.
Apple should have no skin in this game, they don't own any part of it.
Yeah if it were this cheap I'd buy it instead of acquiring it through *ahem* other means.
It will be close to free soon.
This means Microsoft has joined a race to the bottom, and while they have done that before with Vista and W8.n etc, this time they're doing it on price instead of quality.
Them pulling stuff out of their ass to make their product look better.
They're not trying to make their products look better. They're trying to make competitor's products look worse.
It's an important distinction, because it means they don't have to compete on quality or price.
Then we get some of the silliness from Ubuntu trying to shove a new way down everyones' throat
Oh yeah, they're REALLY forcing it down our throats...
Recognised Ubuntu flavours
These are derivatives that use Ubuntu as their foundation and contribute significantly towards the project.
Edubuntu — Ubuntu for education
Ubuntu GNOME — Ubuntu with the GNOME desktop environment
Kubuntu — Ubuntu with the K Desktop environment
Ubuntu Kylin — Ubuntu localised for China
Lubuntu — Ubuntu that uses LXDE
Mythbuntu — Designed for creating a home theatre PC with MythTV
Ubuntu Studio — Designed for multimedia editing and creation
Xubuntu — Ubuntu with the XFCE desktop environment
A complete list of known derivatives is maintained on the Ubuntu Wiki Derivatives Team page.
The Internet is humanity's last chance, boys and girls.
Yep, Skype's gone, and now WhatsApp will be ruined.
Are there any open and demonstrably secure voice/video chat/IM etc applications in the pipeline that anyone's aware of?
which is why Glass will never take off.
Consumer products are only successful if they're marketed to cool, sociable people, not loser nerds with no lives.
I'm their target market.
I'm not a creepy nerd either. I'm a middle-aged business man with a nice wife, a nice house, a reasonable car, and a reasonable job that requires me to inspect and manage engineering works in progress.
I have always obtained and used the best mobile recording tools for the job: Digital cameras as soon as they were available. Those Olympus electronic voice recorders/transcribers. I still have a Compaq Concerto tablet PC from the early '90s, The first Palm Pilot, and several later iterations of the marque. Win CE PDAs and phones. Nokia N800s. Several varieties of Android phones and tablets. If a tool saves me time, it makes me money.
If I could get a Glass, I'd be using it now. It's a tool, not a toy and will succeed or fail based on how good a tool it is.
You can call me a Glasshole if you like. I don't care, as long as it's making my job easier and better.
To do so whilst reserving the ability of the limo owners cameras to work is unreasonable, and doesn't deserve any suggestions.
You could arrange several directional high-intensity gamma ray emitters into a pattern that would ruin hand-held photographs while allowing any fixed cameras outside the beams to work normally.
Fortunately, OP didn't specify that the passengers needed to survive, so this easily meets his criteria.