I've been trying to learn to code (I'm a designer) for a while now. I've read books, played around with making things and I'm now taking the JavaScript course on Codecademy. It taught me:
var functionName = function() {
// whatever
}
I had no idea there were other ways to write a function. I still don't understand what the benefits or drawbacks are of each method. Maybe I haven't made it that far yet. But I literally have no idea what most of you are talking about in this thread. I feel like I visited a post written in chinese.
The scope of learning to code seems overwhelming. Finding small bugs in syntax and design is stressful. What I'm supposed to learn (language, style, syntax, frameworks) seems to change faster than I can learn it. I wish I would have started all of this earlier ... like when I was 10.
I am in a similar position to you, in that I only very recently picked up any javascript.
What's worked for me: use whatever meager skills you have to work on a real project that you find interesting. Not something that can hurt people if it goes wrong, but something you care about. Concentrate on the user experience. Eventually, you'll learn better ways to do things as you need to.
If you want a laugh, look at the source (the javascript at the bottom of the main index). It's probably the worst JS I've ever seen, but I concentrated on the user experience and I'm pretty happy with how that worked out. I'm now building an Android version and the source is a thousand times more elegant and concise. In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure it's still awful, but that's fine, so long as the user experience is good. Next time the code will be better.
Build something real. When you run into a problem you can't solve by yourself, ask for help. This will naturally create a narrow but ever-expanding scope in the face of a limitless quantity of knowledge. I don't know anything about programming, but that's what's worked for me so far.
My advice: don't sweat it. Best thing to do would be to code and build things, and then you'll come back to this article in a year and be like, oh, that's obvious. Abstruse technical details don't matter that much, especially when you're starting out.
I'm currently finishing up writing a programming book for absolute beginners and I couldn't agree more with this advice. Don't sweat it! You don't need to learn all of the details of the latest framework. Get comfortable with some small piece of the landscape, stake your claim, and build something you like with it.
Javascript is not the easiest first language to pick up, though obviously it is the one you will get the most bang for your buck from as a designer.
I think what might help you is thinking of programming languages as foreign languages. They have their own vocabulary and grammar. So right away, let that take the pressure off in terms of how quickly you are picking it up. Some people can pick up foreign languages easily. Others can pick up programming languages just as fast. But even if you don't have a natural knack for it, with some persistence practice and time, you will get there.
Also, remember that the person you are talking to in your new language (the computer) is the biggest grammar nazi you have ever met. And they will refuse to acknowledge you unless you use the proper form exactly right. So you can't get away with just memorizing "Could you please tell me where is the bathroom?" because one day you'll accidentally say "Could please tell me bathroom", and your previously helpful foreign friend will completely blow you off.
What that means is I think it will be easier if you try to really understand every part of the line you are writing: What is a function. What is "var". WHY do you use var sometimes, and sometimes not, and what is the difference. What is the crazy jQuery syntax all about, with $'s, and parenthesis, and callbacks, etc.
It will take you more time up front, but will lead to fewer frustration in the long run.
Don't worry about it. Programming is easier for an adult to pick up than, say, music or math.
Definitely don't waste your time chasing the latest and greatest. Most frameworks are fads — that's why they go in and out of fashion so quickly. Once you solidly understand the basics, and once you have gained some experience (you probably need a year or so), you'll know enough to evaluate libraries and frameworks efficiently.
Build something using the tools you already know. Don't use too many libraries. Don't copy in code from StackOverflow which you don't understand. Don't listen to know-it-alls who respond to your questions with "why would you ever want to do that?" Just code up a solution to your current problem, and move on. You'll be a good hacker before you know it.
PS: I do suggest you learn to program outside the web domain. The web is unusually beginner-unfriendly because (1) you have to keep dealing with the browser-server stateless request-response fundamental design, and (2) the browser and the DOM are pretty confusing concepts.
There aren't, the name of a function is optional (if you assign it to a variable.) So you can write:
function a() {}
// or
var a = function() {}
// or
var a = function a() {}
// or
obj.prototype.a = function() {}
// or
obj.prototype.a = function a() {}
There is little difference in the function declaration. The difference is if you named it or not.
The reason you have to be careful with the var a = function() {} forms is because variables are hoisted. So while the function will exist, your variable will not point to that function until the assignment happens.
I'm not sure the point of this article. She didn't spend much time attacking specific myths.
I see so many people these days running to defend these giant corporations and their processes from creating food as quickly and cheaply as possible. They don't need defending. They've won. Most Americans rely on their products, whether they like it or not. I can't make the schools serve my kids healthy foods, I can't make the prisons serve prisoners real foods or make my local grocery store stock foods that are safe and healthy. Let them defend themselves. They'll be fine.
If I make the decision that I don't want HFCS in my bread or certain GMO products in my lunch, why do you care? Why block the nutrition label from saying that a product is GMO? It doesn't effect you. If you're positive that no negative consequences come from us engineering our food, then go ahead and eat as much as you want. But stop attacking those of us that want to be able to find foods that meet our own personal standards. We all should have the right to know what's in our food and where it comes from.
I care a lot about what I eat and the foods I make for my family. I know a lot of misinformation is out there but the appropriate response is to correct the misinformation, not attack everyone that is just trying to do what's best for themselves.
For those of you that want to start caring about what you put in your body, http://examine.com is a good place to start. Good luck.
Advertising a food as GMO free is banned for good reason. Labeling is supposed to be informative to the consumer, and alert them to nutritional information about the food which could impact their health--and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact.
If food manufacturers were free to advertise the absence of irrelevant nutrients, they would immediately begin barraging consumers with useless or harmful information--
"now free of pyridoxal phosphate!"
"no phylloquinone used in the production of this cereal!"
Should the average consume have to know that these are actually vitamin K and B6? Of course not, the nutrition facts are there to inform them, and the FDA makes sure it cannot be used just for branding purposes or to confuse the consumer. Since GMO food is unequivocally proven safe, the manufacturer will not be helping the consumer make an informed decision by advertising the absence.
The science is never done. I hate, HATE, hate when people treat science like we already have all of the answers.
> and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact.
No, the studies done thus far, with specific controls they've used and the ideas they've test for, haven't found anything. There is no such thing as decisive in science. The science could change tomorrow. What's harder to change is the laws we've put in place because of industry interests.
The United States has a long history of taking the side of big business. Even with food. Look at the food pyramid that I was taught as the "healthiest" way to eat when I went to school. Today things have changed and we've learned a lot of backstory on how much of what we learned during that period was based on industry lobbying and not science.
I don't want us to make the same mistake again. Genetic engineering is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our food yet. I'm not saying we should ban GMOs. But I think it's fair to label foods that have GMOs in them for those of us that don't want to take part in the giant human trial.
At one point we were all cool with asbestos in our homes, lead in our paint, chemicals in our water and doctors endorsed smoking. Stop pretending like this isn't a big gamble.
Actually, genetic engineering is one of the oldest sciences. There are more modern methods of genetic engineering, but the discipline itself is as old as civilization. Most of the foods we eat are not found in the wild. They were developed through genetic engineering.
For example, look at wild apples and apples found in the store. Better yet, actually taste them. They are hardly alike. In fact, none of the apple varieties we consume today were around just a few hundred years ago. They did not magically appear. They were developed through genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our food yet. I'm not saying we should ban GMOs. But I think it's fair to label foods that have GMOs in them for those of us that don't want to take part in the giant human trial.
Electronic computing is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our homes yet. I'm not saying we should ban computers. But I think it's fair to label products that have computers in them for those of us that don't want to take part in the giant human trial.
Wireless telegraphy is a very young science. It doesn't belong in our air yet. I'm not saying we should ban wireless communication...
The electric car is a very young science. It doesn't belong on our roads yet...
At one point we were, as you pointed out, "all cool" with asbestos, lead paint, etc. Stop pretending like the inventions above aren't a big gamble!
etc., etc.
At this point, for all of the "young" inventions above, we have at least a decade and typically more of evidence showing either that the "young" inventions are not biologically harmful to human life, or are no more biologically harmful to human life than what they're replacing.
And the same is true of GMO food. The track record is solid, and the "wait and see" approach is essentially an infinitely-shifting goalpost (no matter how long we wait, and no matter how much data we get, it miraculously never seems to be quite long enough or quite enough data for those folks, and they impose standards of "safety" which would require essentially infinite time and data to comply with).
Thus the urge to label when the data does not support classifying GMO as a risk is essentially the urge to push people to give in to blind fear rather than evaluating available evidence, and encouraging reactions out of blind fear does not make good public policy.
Pretending for a moment you couldn't see without a label that these technologies are contained somewhere: What would be the problem of labeling a product as containing a computer? Or a "wireless telegraphy" machine?
If you want to make an informed decision you need information. And if someone starts to hide that information I get a bit suspicious.
If you want to make an informed decision you need information.
Except people who want labeling -- voluntary or otherwise -- of GMO have demonstrated already, beyond any possible doubt, that "informed decisions" are not their goal.
Besides, if you're really that scared, I've got some homeopathic pills you can buy. They are guaranteed to prevent any negative impact to your health from GMO foods.
The problem with labeling is that it implies it's relevant. How would you feel about adding a label to food that indicates the ethnicity of the person that packed it? Applying your logic, not putting it on there is just hiding information used to make an 'informed decision'.
Because whether or not something is produced using genetic engineering techniques does not explain whether its safe.
For example, I could genetically engineer corn to produce to tetrodoxin poison, and kill a bunch of people with it. Does that prove GMO food is unsafe? No, it proves tetrodoxin is dangerous.
GMO labelling initiatives set out to inflame and spread fear, because no one ever wants to try and label exactly what has been altered, deleted or added. They just want to stick a big "Genetically modified!" sticker on there because their interest group has their public polling data which they know will make consumers react negatively.
>>GMO labelling is of no value though.
Because whether or not something is produced using genetic engineering techniques does not explain whether its safe.
Ah, now here's the thing. If you don't know whether it's safe or not which side do you error on? For me and my family, all I know is that my family has no particular history of health problems eating mostly "organic" in that I'm the first generation born in America and the rest of them grew up in Nigeria eating food from plants & farm animals raised with centuries-old tribal techniques. Not saying this was 100% of their diet, but certainly a great deal more natural than USA. I have a relative who doesn't need their diabetes medicine when in Nigeria to control blood sugar level. I'm guessing it's because in Nigeria 97% of the food isn't loaded with HFCS and other sweeteners.
I have no idea wether GMOs are safe, but I'm not interested in being the experiment for it. GMO labeling should be allowed. Or at the very, very least I should be able to go online to see the GMO status of a brand of food product.
GMO labeling should be allowed. Or at the very, very least I should be able to go online to see the GMO status of a brand of food product.
Another part of this is probably from the core belief I hold; that human beings messing around with mother-nature is generally hubris and risky. I do respect the fact that many, many amazing things have come out of medial science but I treat it all with caution rather than just whatever-the-scientists-say-must-be-right. Then I watch something like "Food Inc."[1] and become just a bit more skeptical of foods enhanced by science via processing, GMO, pesticides, whatever. I want my food grown with plain ol' water & sunshine & animal feces fertilizer... at least for now.
And this entire line of reasoning is based on the naturalistic-fallacy.
Nature is out to kill you. The harmonious balance of an ecosystem is a brutal stalemate in an endless war, and this is why you definitely shouldn't eat the berries you find in the forest without knowing what they are (nor eat fish from the ocean if you don't know what they are etc. etc.)
Moreover, your entire spiel on GMO is powered by a completely unrelated area of food manufacture and preparation which has much more to do with the negative health outcomes people have from food. Do you demand labels indicating what type of processing has been done on every package? Or would that be surprisingly unhelpful without more detail?
Funny you mention Nigeria, a country scrambling to work out a proper biosafety framework and educate farmers [1] so that they can feed a population that is #40 on the hunger index [2], with nearly a tenth undernourished [3]. With the current life expectancy of ~50 years [4], there's a ways to go for Nigerians to see any negative health effects from GMOs among the noise of malnutrition and stunted growth, if there is any to be found (and we've been trying for a while now).
But that's not the thing. The argument is that labeling something "GMO" gives NO information about whether it's safe. You cannot use this label to err on the side of safety, because the same argument can be used for food labeled as "GMO-free": this also gives NO information about its safety. What side would you err on in this case?
Just look at this: organic, gluten free, wheat free, whole grain, nature's path, happy panda!
Yet the nutritional info shows 2g protein, 2g fiber, 3.5g fat, 7g sugar (almost 2 teaspoons!) per 30g serving. Also no vitamins. Not much nutrition there.
Imagine dropping 2 teaspoons of sugar into a child's glass of milk. You wouldn't do that, would you?
> Advertising a food as GMO free is banned for good reason.
Well, except that it isn't banned (plenty of foods are advertised as GMO free [1]), and if it was, the reason you state would be bunk.
> and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact.
No, they haven't, though regulatory approval of individual GMOs for food use does require a number of steps intended to minimize the risk of health impacts.
> Since GMO food is unequivocally proven safe
Nothing is "unequivocally proven safe", and newly-engineered foods (whether actual traditional breeding methods, or the advanced modern techniques that are called traditional breeding rather than GM, or actual GMOs) are most emphatically not "unequivocally proven" safe before being introduced, though GMOs (and pretty much only GMOs) actually have to have some evidence that certain particular source of risk are addressed.
> Advertising a food as GMO free is banned for good reason. Labeling is supposed to be informative to the consumer, and alert them to nutritional information about the food which could impact their health--and GMO foods have decisively been shown to have no health impact.
Ummm so enforce the labelling of foods as containing GMOs. Hence the absence of a label is an indication that foods contain no GM ingredients. I don't think mandatory labelling is undue administrative burden, the only reason manufacturers would object is because it would affect people's purchasing choices, which is the point.
> If I make the decision that I don't want HFCS in my bread or certain GMO products in my lunch, why do you care? Why block the nutrition label from saying that a product is GMO? It doesn't effect you. If you're positive that no negative consequences come from us engineering our food, then go ahead and eat as much as you want. But stop attacking those of us that want to be able to find foods that meet our own personal standards. We all should have the right to know what's in our food and where it comes from.
Bullshit. In the United States the FDA has had an advisory on GMO labeling for over a decade [1] and the EU has a regulatory framework which has been up almost as long [2]. Neither ban GMO-free labeling or its counterpart.
If you want too, you can email, call, and snailmail all the businesses that your neighborhood grocery stores buy produce from and demand that they put labeling on them. But stop trying to stuff your personal boogeyman down the throat of a populace sensitive to volatility in food prices while you eat organic food sprayed by bacillus thurengiensis and other bacteria, organisms that humans have been haphazardly messing with at an evolutionary scale for almost a century in industrialized/organic farming and have been genetically modifying for more than half that.
What is engineering of food? If GMOs are "bad" what about hybrids developed via selective breeding? Am I poisoning myself by planting a "Better Boy" tomato that is disease resistant, or should I plant some heirloom tomato?
There is no answer to these questions. There are opinions.
The purpose of GMO labelling (and all labelling) is to give people the opportunity to make decisions on the basis of their opinion in the absence of any clear answers.
If I decide that I want to stop eating palm oil because I love orang utans, how can I make that decision if all labels just say "vegetable oils" as the ingredient?
If I decide I want to boycott Monsanto because I don't like their logo, by eating only foods that contain no genetically modified ingredients, how can I make that decision unless the food is labelled adequately?
In short, I should be able to decide what ingredients I wish to avoid or prefer for any reason; it's no-one else's business to say that my reasoning is invalid or I am dumb because Monsanto's logo is clearly awesome or orang utans are pests and we should eat more palm oil. Shit, if you hate orang utans or love Monsanto, maybe you want to eat MORE palm oil and GM foods... If they aren't labelled how can you know you're destroying the most lives of farmers and orang utans?? Food labelling is good for everyone.
So then should the food be labeled by the race, sex and sexual orientation of the person/people that grew/produced/shipped it? Maybe you'd also like to avoid food made by people of a certain race? Or maybe you'd like to avoid food made by people of a certain sexual orientation because you're afraid you'll catch their "disease".
Just hopefully pointing out there's a spectrum of arguably good and bad labeling. Which side GMO falls on is clearly a personal opinion but it's not an obvious good.
This isn't a matter of personal opinion. Even if a company wanted to it would be illegal for them to discriminate on this basis. There are examples of labelling being used to promote certain types of working conditions, though such as fairtrade; or certain production methods such as pole and line caught tuna.
No, it isn't. Labeling is there is express facts so you can make informed decisions related to nutrition.
If you want to eat organic, no GMO popcorn without palm oils made in Brazil, you'll need to either find a manufactured product that is oriented towards your beliefs, or source the raw materials yourself.
Labelling is so I can make an informed decision about anything to do with the products I buy (it doesn't only apply to food either). Which facts are relevant is a changing landscape but the more comprehensively any product is labelled, the more information I have on which to base my choices.
(Haven't used this account in a while, not sure if it's shadowbanned. Hope you can see this.)
No matter what you think of Apple, or Google, and their respective ecosystems, I'm curious what people think of Samsungs popularity. They're a massive South Korean company that until recently was well known mostly for ripping off other companies products and out-marketing them (I'm not making this up, these accusations go back decades now covering a variety of consumer products, go ahead and Google it). Some people, myself included, don't really believe this practice ever ended. Say something were to happen to Apple and Samsung truly pulled away as the technology leader in the future. Are you as a consumer happy putting your eggs in that basket, so to speak? Do you think Samsung is going to embrace a culture of innovation, vision and design? I honestly don't see it. As a designer, I've stayed clear of Samsung products because they just come off as cheap (or expensive) imitations. As a market leader, you have the privilege to introduce consumers to exciting new technologies, UI innovations and ideas. Samsung isn't built for that. Their idea of great design is hiring 1,000 good designers and taking a little bit from each one. That's not how design works. You have to have a unified vision with a great idea behind it. Consistency is so important. I don't care if Apple is the leader for the next decade but I'd rather a more creative company took the reins.
Samsung coasts on Google's creativity in pushing Android. If they had to rely on Tizen or Meego (or god forbid Symbian), they'd be dead in the water... and that's not considering Google's very popular 1st-party Android apps (ie, GMail, Maps, etc).
Without Google, Samsung has no trump cars in the hand. They know it, which is why they put any money at all in to other OSs.
What is amazing is that Google is letting them dominate the Android market so completely. If Google hopes that a strong Samsung will ward off a strong Apple, they better watch their own back.
My son is extremely allergic to wheat and milk. We have to carry an epi-pen with us everywhere. He swells up, including his face and throat, when he comes in contact with these allergens. It's cost us thousands of dollars in hospital bills, missed work and is a constant worry. If people eat something, don't wash their hands and then touch him, he'll get a bad rash. Most gluten free food is free of wheat and some of that is free of dairy too. I'm thankful for the gluten free trend. Without it, my son wouldn't have much of a chance to eat many common foods. You wouldn't believe some of the things they put wheat in, sometimes for seemingly no reason at all. He can't even play with play dough. So I'll continue to pay 5x as much for a loaf of gluten-free bread because it gives my son a more normal life.
I'm gluten-free by medical necessity, though not nearly as bad as what is unfortunately afflicting your son. And gluten-free products are a) expensive, b) still pretty rare, and c) unlikely to be found outside of specialized sections in large supermarkets or online retailers.
If nothing else, gluten-free faddism creates market forces that increase the availability of gluten-free options while simultaneously reducing their (substantial!) cost. So in that sense, it has some positive externalities.
For example, you can actually get a gluten-free option on most airplane flights these days. That certainly wasn't the case 5 years ago (or at least it wasn't unless you went out of your way to arrange something).
Conversely, the one real danger is that a lot of products are coming to market very quickly, and not all of them are as gluten-free or wheat-safe as they claim. (For instance, a product not made with wheat, but processed in the same factory as wheat products, can get away with calling itself "gluten free," and you need to read the very, very fine print on the package to figure this out). The labeling standards need to catch up to the marketing.
"And gluten-free products are a) expensive, b) still pretty rare, and c) unlikely to be found outside of specialized sections"
Not true. Our whole family has been on the diet for a decade or so for medical necessity of our son. Yes if you "demand" something like gluten containing junk food its terribly expensive and frankly doesn't taste very good, usually. But a perfectly "normal" GF lifestyle isn't any more difficult or expensive than a G lifestyle.
Grilled chicken caesar salad with homemade tasty dressing... just hold the crutons.
Traditional steak dinner with all the fixings, just don't marinate in soy sauce based marinades and don't serve garlic bread on the side.
Beef pot roast with all the fixings except dinner rolls.
Meatloaf just use rice as a binder instead of wheat flour and thicken the gravy with off the shelf cornstarch instead of wheat flour.
For obvious "bun" reasons we tend to cook a heck of a lot more kebobs than burgers and brats. He have had cornbread burger buns and they're not as bad as they might sound... after all corn torilla and seasoned meat is not unheard of, so cornbread and somewhat less seasoned meat is pretty good too.
Lime garlic marinated chicken stir fried
Snack time tends a lot more toward corn chips and salsa or sliced up fruit than toward cookies and cake slices.
You'd be amazed what can be done with cornbread and cornbread batter, but you have to make your own from cornmeal, the mixes in the store use flour as a binder. No problemo homemade is about 1/2 the cost of boxed mix anyway.
I don't like eggs, but obviously for breakfast we do a lot more bacon -n- eggs than bacon -n- pancakes.
I do agree that for social reasons a GF cake costing $10 and tasting like instant potatoes and crunchy rice is kinda ridiculous. So unless there's intense social pressure we don't buy the "GF-products" and stick to naturally GF food instead. Very little baby spinach contains wheat, for example.
"Yes if you "demand" something like gluten containing junk food its terribly expensive and frankly doesn't taste very good, usually."
I'm not talking about junk food, per se. For someone who's on the road constantly, or works crazy hours, and doesn't often have time to cook or prepare meals, packaged and restaurant foods are unfortunate necessities of life.
Now, I'm fully aware that there are people who'd consider all such food, by sheer virtue of being shelf-stable and packaged, to be junk food. And I try my absolute hardest to avoid packaged foods in general. But I'm not looking for gluten-free chips or donuts. I'm looking for gluten-free ready-to-eat meals, or gluten-free microwave meals, or gluten-free options on restaurant menus, or gluten-free breakfast bars, or gluten-free breads, etc. All of these things have become much more available in the last half-decade than they've been in my entire life preceding it.
Well... OK. You mention the expensive costs dropping with popularity, then when I point out a plate of fried eggs and bacon for breakfast at the diner has always been pretty cheap and nothing new, and they don't "need" GF pancakes or GF toast to serve naturally GF food, you turn it around and make it an availability argument instead...
As for ready to eat meals and such we've done "ok" with gourmet (aka non-noodle) soups and innumerable granola bars. Also sometimes you just have to try something else. Can't buy GF granola bars at this particular store today? Guess you're having (certain) trail mixes.
GF microwave meals sounds interesting. I'm guessing aside from specialty GF products, something rice based would be the best hope?
"You mention the expensive costs dropping with popularity, then when I point out a plate of fried eggs and bacon for breakfast at the diner has always been pretty cheap and nothing new, and they don't "need" GF pancakes or GF toast to serve naturally GF food, you turn it around and make it an availability argument instead..."
The availability issue was part of my original post, as well (viz., my points "b" and "c"). You assumed I was talking about junk food, and I had to elaborate my position in response. That's a clarification, not a topical shift.
For what it's worth, I totally concede your point about produce and meat. To the extent that you believe that such things invalidate my point altogether, well, that's where I needed to add clarity.
Dan Pallotta wrote an article titled "When My Business Failed". It included a quote that explains the Apple/Android war perfectly:
> I've learned that the adage about innovation is true — that at first, people say your idea is absurd, then they say it was obvious all along, and then they say it was their idea to begin with.
That's exactly what I've seen with Apple since Steve Jobs returned. Remember all the "giant iPod" comments when the iPad was released? Or the "this will fail without a keyboard" when the iPhone came out? Those people shut up now. With each product Apple released, people dismissed it immediately.
Now people are saying they're "obvious" ideas. The argument that Apple shouldn't be allowed to defend their designs all center around how "obvious" they are. Of course, they weren't obvious when Apple released them. They're only "obvious" now that other companies have copied those ideas. I won't get in to design with most of you because you aren't designers but the simplest solutions are usually the hardest to come up with. It's easy to make something complicated. It's very, very hard to make it simple or intuitive.
You can't rewrite history. When the iPhone was being developed, Android looked like Blackberry. Those are the facts. What should be obvious is that Eric Schmidt sat on Apples board and suddenly pivoted Android before being removed for "conflicts on interest." And you wonder why Steve Jobs was pissed? That's a serious breach of ethics.
Most of the anti-Apple comments are absurd. Like the Xerox thing: Apple didn't steal anything. They paid for something Xerox didn't believe in and weren't going to develop further.
If you have an issue with patents write your congressperson. Donate to not-for-profit organizations trying to fix the patent system. Contact the companies that abuse the patent system (especially if you're a shareholder or large customer) and tell them what you think. But don't use patents as an excuse to attack companies you irrationally hate.
I love how you turn some people into "people" like it was all people. Remember the Palm os? No? Revionist history? Wasn't that before iPhone? What about Knight Ridder's iPad in the 90s? Doesn't ring a bell? Thought so.
I also love how revisionist history of Android being a black-berry clone, then suddenly not is still propagated. When Google first took over Android, it's aim was to work on all platforms - to be open. That's still the aim... blackberry, or iPhone like - it doesn't matter.
I feel it important that the tech community discusses the validity of patents, not -only- write letters to a congressman. Let the world discuss how broken and harmful they are.
Also, I advise you to pick your examples a little better to blindly defend companies that you love.
My love is first and foremost to society. I have no particular preference to Apple, Google, Android, Canonical, Microsoft - or whatever. But anything that harms society, I will take offense to.
Before you shoot me down for being anti-Apple, I own no Samsung or Google/Android products, but I own an iPad3, iPhone4 and three iPod touches. However, I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition, and in effect, harm society.
> I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition
Who has Apple sued that aren't blatantly copying the iOS UI? Are they suing Microsoft over Windows Phone? Are they suing HP over webOS? Are they suing Nokia over Symbian? Are they suing BlackBerry?
I don't see how permitting blatant copying of a company's UI is supposed to encourage innovation. If we want to encourage innovation, then we must encourage companies to innovate -- not copy.
The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license.
It's interesting that Microsoft chose to purchase a license outright rather than work out a cross-licensing deal. It seems like MS did this to lay the groundwork for Apple to purse their competition in the Android space, since Apple could then go to court and say, "Look, even Microsoft paid for a license!"
> The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license.
I'd be willing to bet good money the the reason that Apple licensed iOS UI patents to Microsoft was to make Microsoft sign something saying that they wouldn't copy the iOS UI too closely, rather than for Apple to make a killing on licensing fees. Making a killing on licensing fees is Microsoft's approach, which they have used successfully against Android.
Apple took this same approach they're taking now back with Windows 1: They licensed Mac OS UI elements to Microsoft, but then ultimately sued Microsoft when Apple felt that Microsoft violated the terms of that license and made a UI that was too similar in look-and-feel to Mac OS.
If anything, this is evidence that Apple is not trying to squelch competition or innovation. They don't seem to mind competition at all, and will even license their technologies, as long as other companies aren't slavishly copying Apple's design.
I also love how "people" talk about Palm phones even though they've clearly never actually used or seen one. Because if you there is no way you would make a comparison between them and the iPhone. They are world's apart.
Also no offense but you might want to cut down on the hyperbole. Society is not going to be harmed by companies like Samsung having to find other ways to style their phone or design their UIs.
> They are world's apart .. you might want to cut down on the hyperbole.
Rustynails backed his comment with evidence and reasoning, while your reasoning is backed by.. hyperbole.
You seem like the type who would defend patents over for-loops because - Hey, it wasn't obvious to you. How about you come up with an objective test to determine if something is "obvious", and maybe the rest of us will take you seriously. Until then, please, lay more hyperbole on us.
Just because people didn't like something doesn't make it "non obvious".
It's not like the iPhone was the first phone with a software keyboard, I remember people using the XDA years before that. In many ways the iPad essentially is a "giant iPod" , just turns out there was a market for a giant iPod.
Edit:
Actually now I think about it I remember a conversation I had with a friend who is a big Apple fan at around the time that the iPhone/iPod touch came out. Something like this:
"Hey, this iPod touch is cool. Now you can watch movies on the go!"
"Yea, but the screen is kinda small, I don't want to watch a movie on a 4" screen. If they brought out a bigger version of this that I could stuff in my briefcase I might be interested."
"Don't be ridiculous, nobody would want to buy that!"
I also remember him trying to explain to me how GPRS/Edge was superior to 3G..
...and yet, somewhere inside Apple, there's a prototype of the next iPad. And it looks different. Maybe completely different.
Lightbulbs look different than when I was a kid. Oxo re-invented the look and feel of measuring spoons. Objects as mundane as doorknobs have so changed their design over the years that vintage models can be sold for a premium.
It's practically a truism that after the next device comes out -- no matter how simple the device -- there will be people claiming that it's design is "obviously" the only way to do it. I've stopped listening to those people, because they're almost never correct.
What was their idea exactly? Be the first to adopt working capacitive touch technology for a phone, and implement absolutely obvious and natural user interface for it? Really? Idea?
To me their success lies in timely choice of technologies to use and good implementation. Not in unobvious ideas.
I guess I'll be the voice of opposition here. Unlike a lot of you, I live in Georgia and own guns. My family, friends and co-workers also own guns.
I currently only own a small 9mm handgun. I'm licensed to carry it concealed on me and do frequently. To get that license, I had to have a clean record, be signed off by a judge and have my fingerprints filed with the GBI and FBI from the local sheriffs office. I've been vetted similarly to what any police officer has gone through.
In the past I've owned a Bushmaster XM-15 E2S, a so-called AR-15 style "assault weapon" probably very similar to what was used in the shootings. I know a lot about weapons and the AR-15 platform in particular. To non gun owners, they do look like scary black military rifles but they're only semi-automatic (one round each time you pull the trigger) and are classified as "varmint" guns for civilians. That means it's illegal to hunt large game (like deer) with them a lot of places because they don't have the stopping power. The reason our military uses the same round (5.56 NATO/.223 civilian) is because they decided it was easier to give our troops a small round they can carry more of than train them all to be proficient marksmen.
To be truthful, your average deer hunting rifle has a lot more stopping power than an AR-15 and a skilled shooter can fire even a bolt-action rather rapidly. It's a misconception that the AR-15 platform is any more deadly just because of its appearance.
When politicians have tried to ban the AR-15 platform, they did it by picking out features at random and trying to regulate any weapon with those features. It's kind of a mess. For some reason they chose things like the handguard to pick on, which keeps that barrel from burning your hand after its been fired and the retractible stock which does nothing but allow you to adjust the rifle to be more comfortable for different shooters body types. It's about what you would expect when someone tries to regulate something they've made no attempt to understand.
I can argue about gun from a million different angles but it comes down to these things for me:
— Every living thing on this planet has some form of defense. We as humans use tools. I don't see how you can possibly consider it smart to take away our only method of defense without providing an adequate alternative. The last time we called the police it took over 5 minutes for them to arrive and they aren't responsible for protecting individuals (Warren v. District of Columbia). That means you are responsible for yourself.
— Criminals will always be able to access the things we "ban" (see: drugs, prostitution, et. al.) so any laws would only have an effect of disarming law-abiding citizens.
— It's too late. We have as many guns in the U.S. as people. It would cost billions in law-enforcement work to even collect a fraction of those. It would also probably lead to a number of unnecessary violent encounters.
— It's treating the symptom. Humanity will always have violence but if you really want to reduce these incidents we would work on the cause. We don't know a lot about the most recent incident yet but we do have huge issues with access to mental healthcare (and healthcare in general) in this country. We also have large problems with poverty and cultural issues.
I hope not. Apple is one of the few companies making an effort to design software and hardware together. Until other companies realize you can't have a good user experience without considering all aspects of the product, many people will continue to cheer Apple's approach to product development. This is one of the reasons why it's exciting that Microsoft is doing the Surface tablet. It seems like Microsoft took a step back and looked at how Apple has executed some great products and is taking a similar approach.
So, the iPhone is almost even in sales with the entire Android ecosystem consisting of thousands of models, many of them cheap or free to consumers. Am I supposed to be impressed?
To be fair, the title (both this one and the foxnews.com headline) is linkbait. But Apple is selling 2/3 as many handsets (not really "almost even") and losing market share, so the report represents real motion and is newsworthy. You're not supposed to be "impressed" per se, but if you're interested in the smartphone market it's stuff you should be reading. And if, as I suspect, you're a die hard Apple fan who hates all things Android to the core: play around with a device running ICS or JB. I think you'll be surprised at how impressive they are.
You're right, I am an Apple fan. OS X has done amazing things for my productivity since I switched and I've done a tremendous amount of "creating" on the device people say is only for consumption (the iPad.) When my iMac had an issue, Apple paid a guy to drive 4 hours across state lines to fix it for me so I wouldn't have to wait for shipping. When my iPod died, Apple gave me a better one. Apple has earned my trust.
Google on the other hand has not. When my Gmail account was hacked I couldn't even find a contact for Google. Everything I read from 3rd parties said it was an exploit on the mobile Gmail website and yet Google wasn't going to look in to it, instead they had support docs that said it was probably my fault. Later, as an early Google+ evangelist, I had my account locked down because my wife and I were sharing the same Google account. Again, no way to contact. I've come to accept that Google doesn't give a shit about any individual customer and so I don't bother supporting them in any way.
As far as Android, I just don't care. No matter how good the Android OS gets, I care more about the 3rd party apps I'll be using. I've purchased a lot of great software from amazing developers that simply isn't available on Android. This is particularly an issue with tablet apps.
I once was a happy iTunes/App Store user, for my iPad. One day, late at night, I started getting receipts in my inbox for App Store purchases. Apparently I was purchasing the same $15 app once every 5 minutes. Except, I wasn't. It was only by chance that I was still awake when I caught it, and it had already racked up about 12 purchases in a row. In a frantic fit of confusion, I canceled whatever payment agreement I had with iTunes and then charged everything back through my bank. I guess I got hacked.. or something? I still don't know.
As a result of the chargebacks, Apple permanently disabled my iTunes ID. Since then, there has been no way for me to re-enable it, and I lost everything associated with it. Eventually I gave up. I haven't reformatted my iPad or taken the time to create a new account, so my iPad is frozen in time with whatever software I had installed on it by early 2011. So I have the same support impression of Apple that you do of Google, since the only time I ever needed them was for this, and they failed. It hasn't turned out to be much of a problem since I mostly use it for the internet on the toilet.
All companies have good and bad support in certain areas.
I'm typing this on ICS after using iPhone exclusively for nearly three years and can say I'm rather impressed with it. It is no longer nothing like the G1 (that I got one to play around for few weeks back then) or the Nexus One. It gets a lot smoother, prettier and third party software feels a little bit more likable (UI-wise) than it used to be.
Compared to when I last looked where rooting is prohibited by manufacturers, today we have something like HTCdev that provide an official way to unlock that is kind of cool.
Judging from the one in my hand right now I'm giving it about 85% of iPhone smoothness which makes me seriously looking forward to Jelly Bean. It would become my primary mobile OS of choice if Google finally get vendor update and manufacturers crapware sorted out.
> third party software feels a little bit more likable (UI-wise) than it used to be.
That is the important thing so many Android fans seem to ignore. The OS isn't as important as the 3rd party apps. Android developers are of tremendous importance to the overall success of Android, maybe even more than Google. This will only become more important in the future as more normal people learn to use app stores. iOS has a lot of great developers that have moved over from the Mac. They have experience making apps that aren't only functional but also beautiful and easy to use. Java developers moving to Android on the other hand usually lack the experience with front-end design given Java is typically an enterprise language.
"But Apple is selling 2/3 as many handsets (not really "almost even") and losing market share"
Actually, that's something I'm not clear on. Apple is losing percentage, but that might be in a growing market. Losing market share would imply the market is staying the same size, no?
No, market "share" is a relative quantity (just like a share of stock or of a pie). iOS sales are undeniably growing, and Apple is printing money with these devices. This doesn't show that they're "losing" in any meaningful way. What it shows is that Android is "winning faster", which may be a problem for Apple long term (or not, depending on where the market stabilizes).
>And if, as I suspect, you're a die hard Apple fan who hates all things Android to the core: play around with a device running ICS or JB. I think you'll be surprised at how impressive they are.
I understand why it's hard to get people to believe this, but it's absolutely insane how hard it is to convince people of this. I've seen more and more people floored at Jelly Bean. They watched the demo video and are amazed at how nice it looks and how slick it is. I don't have the heart to tell them that Honeycomb was 50% of the way there (Between Froyo and JB) and that ICS was... 99.9% of the way there. There are hardly any visual changes outside of the "Project Butter" between ICS and JB and yet all the people are acting like JB is this big visual refresh.
Don't get me wrong Project Butter uped the ante, but not that much. It's as smoother or smoother than the iPhone, but ICS was nearly there. The 60Hz vsync just made it that much nicer. Plus, none of that 2002-2003-esque skeuomorphism. It almost pains me to see iOS in places after Holo in ICS, it reminds me of plasticy KDE.
The problem is the hardware. It's always the hardware with Android. If the phone has a nice camera the GPS is crap. If the GPS works, the screen is shit. Or it's got hardware buttons a year after ICS came out. And if you're lucky enough to get all that? Then it'll have a locked bootloader so you're stuck with whatever TouchSenseBlur crap the manufacturer's marketing department decided to vomit all over the beautiful, stock Android.
I suspect this is a significant challenge for Google and Android branding in general. When people compare their experiences "with Android" it seems they don't mention the particular hardware they are using. Unlike Apple where if you're using an 'iOS phone' the hardware is known. So its perfectly understandable when two people have diametrically opposed opinions on Android, switch hardware, and switch sides. Its like every dessert was named 'ice cream' and yet some people ate mars bars and some people m&ms and some twizzlers.
iOS has been my bread and butter for the last year but I really think Apple is losing ground here. If Google wasn't having such a hard time getting OS updates out there I think Apple would be in serious trouble.
I think Apple's simplistic, app-centric model helped get the iPhone out the door in 2007 but it's showing its age now and Apple's regressive, skeuomorphic designs look increasingly dated compared to the competition.
Google has been way behind in terms of execution with their Android story, I keep hoping that Motorola Mobility will inject their execution DNA into Google rather than the other way round, only time will tell.
I think Google's software engineering team has mostly been doing a very good job evolving and refining the platform.
Unfortunately Google hasn't done very well corralling the various OEMs into getting their work out there into users' hands and I agree their execution needs to improve there, although I'm not sure specifically what they can do without pushing OEMs away from the platform altogether.
This means that if you are an OS vendor but not the system vendor, you have to do things (aka execute) which allow complete systems (hw + OS) to be brought to market. You have to define a HAL for example, and a way to evolve that HAL, and a way to probe what parts of the HAL need to be implemented in software because the hardware bits are missing. You need to provide a bullet proof schedule (which usually means prioritizing software availability over feature availability) at pre-defined times. You need to have a strong relationship with chipset and other silicon vendors to enable solid device support, which is at least backward compatible and ideally forward compatible as well. You need to be able to work with a hardware partner to get their stuff up and running, you need clear APIs that don't change and solid training materials to bring engineers up to speed. You need to create a series of test suites and compatibility suites to provide confidence on your vendors part that they are doing it right. And perhaps most importantly you should provide legal indemnification for your partners who use your software.
When you execute well, all those things are there. When you execute poorly there are parts missing, or parts that are confusing.
The result of poor execution is incompatibility flareups, your partners product shipments slip because they haven't had enough integration time, you screw some partners with a release they cannot ever run on their hardware, and your partners take punches in court for you over their decision to use your OS. That's painful.
I was working at Google when Android was released and while not part of that team, participated in the early development contests and worked on a 'loaner' G1 to test various things. That first release with T-mobile was when Google still felt that could release on open source (mostly) OS, and a reference implementation, and the rest of the world could just pick it up and go wild. (this is sometimes referred to as the 'throw it over the wall' strategy). Fortunately, this failed really hard, really fast as evidenced by the pretty sizable gap between the first Android phone and the second. But Google is nothing if not resilient. When I left in 2010 they were still struggling with the notion of 'software releases have timelines' kind of thing because all of Google's other properties just pushed out to their own hardware in their data centers which meant alpha was beta was release all wrapped in one. Not only that but major changes could occur between any step. Hardware partners really really don't like it when you make a major change between one release and the next.
Much of the early thrashing in the Android market was due to inexperience on Google's part. The fact that Jelly Bean has been released and Ice Cream Sandwich is hardly anywhere is, in my opinion, and artifact of this learning process.
Apple's UI and app centric approach is showing its age for sure. With Android Google has shown that it can take chances with the UI. Android UI has eveolved much more in last 4 years as compared to Apple's.
Of course Windows Phone though the most beautiful OS of the three is well behind these two.
> Of course Windows Phone though the most beautiful OS of the three is well behind these two.
Agreed.
And iOS 6 is pathetic. I feel completely let down. Apple continues their push to make iOS look like shit with each release by adopting more skeuomorphic UI themes. They ignore all the issues with iTunes. Really, this is the first release of iOS, ever, that I haven't been eagerly anticipating the release.
And if you think that's tough, try convincing an iOS or Android fan that MS actually built a spectacular user interface... all you hear is marketshare numbers.
Sorry, Android 4.0, 4.1, 2.2, "a project to make it butter smooth", "the default UI".
It's jargon because it's HN and I'm used to being able to get away with it. I don't see how a code or release name is "polluting".
Maybe they should just call it "magical" every release and drop the versioning. Oh. Maybe "I want Android.". Not "I want an Android phone". Since, you know, the cool guys can't do version numbers or articles now because their devices are too magical for them. (This is a real thing, btw, you'll note that Apple doesn't use articles near their iDevices).
Shame that when you actually USE an ICS/JB device all you notice is how inconsistent and unpolished the UI/UX is across the OS, vendor additions and the apps. And this is on the Samsung Galaxy 3 the supposed flagship phone.
It's confusing enough just knowing when to use the hardware "back" button or not.
> And this is on the Samsung Galaxy 3 the supposed flagship phone.
The Galaxy S3 was never the "supposed flagship phone." I don't know where you heard that, but whoever told you was wrong. The only "flagship" phones for Android are the Nexus phones.
Samsung has a skin on it, it's minimal, but it's still there.
I have a dozen nonstock app installed... and they all fit with the style just fine or perfectly.
>It's confusing enough just knowing when to use the hardware "back" button or not.
I've never understood and may never understand this confusion though I hear it and try to address it constantly. It's the same in almost every app and is different in only a very few apps where the overridden behavior makes a lot of sense.
People often say this. It seems defensive. Basically if the iPhone has higher sales or market share, you can say "Ha, this one phone is beating everything!" And if it's losing in either of those areas, you can say "But it's only one phone!" Also can't you get an iPhone 4 for $99 and a 3GS for $0?
Keep in mind the iPhone is the only phone with iOS, so if you want to get an iOS phone, the iPhone is your only choice. You're not necessarily supposed to be impressed with these Android numbers - but if you aren't, you probably shouldn't be impressed when tides temporarily turn and iPhones are winning in these numbers, either. It's not just one device vs many, it's one OS vs one other OS.
My point was if we're supposed to root for a winner (which is stupid), it hardly seems impressive to use an article like this as your argument.
The reason so many care about these numbers is they want to use them to say their OS is better than the other when it isn't relevant at all. And, the masses make a lot of dumb decisions: just watch the elections coming up!
That doesn't make my remark any less true. Walk in to a cellular store and there is one or two iPhone models on the display. The entire rest of the store is Android phones made by dozens of different companies with new models coming out every day. Of course Android should have the bigger numbers, look at what the iPhone is competing against! Not to mention, a lot of Android builders will cut corners on build quality and offer the same mostly software features as the iPhone on much cheaper hardware. Which phone is your mom gonna pick? The expensive iPhone or the plastic Android sitting next to it that claims to do the same thing—but free with a 2 year contract.
If I'm being defensive, it's because I'm annoyed. I come to hacker news to learn new things and peek in to the world of development, something I'm fascinated in as a designer. I just so fucking sick of the flamebait threads.
> I just so fucking sick of the flamebait threads.
If you've got a problem with a flamebaiting editorialized title, say that; don't start the flame. Android and iPhone are both doing well. This is one metric where Android is ahead. Whether or not it's impressive, it's certainly noteworthy.
Actually, according to the article Android is selling 50% more handsets. Not really "almost even."
I don't think you are supposed to be impressed, it is just a bit of sales data for use at cocktail parties. It seems pretty clear that both iOS and Android are here for the long haul.
I'm sorry your Android experience wasn't the same as mine. If you're talking about vendor specific 3rd party software, then yes I agree there was/is some terrible UI skins out their. But that is what happens when you create software that is free and open source, companies )and in many cases carriers) can do whatever they want with it. I think Google realized the impact this was having on their UI and is now taking steps to fix it. If you have used an ICS or JB device the experience really is much better and much much more unified.
I'm not saying Android is perfect they have certainly made mistakes, but I think that now they have worked a lot of the kinks and are shipping a much better product. This is something that often happens in the software industry, how many people used Mac OS before OS X? How terrible was the Palm UI before WebOS? How bad was Windows Vista?
Software companies make mistakes, but the good ones learn from them and create better products in the future, that's what innovation is all about.
If you haven't yet I encourage you to try an Android ICS or JB device and see if your experience differs.
Time to turn off the talk radio, buddy. People can't get jobs that don't exist. The people on unemployment, disability or other government benefits didn't conspire to ruin the economy. They're just trying to feed their families and survive long enough to find work. If you're looking for someone to blame, look at the people that got rich while the rest of America got poor. The ones the benefited from this disaster are the same ones that caused it.
Did I say they conspired to ruin the economy? No. Did I say I blame them for the state of the economy? No.
And I don't listen to talk radio.
I'm blaming the excessive amount of debt in the system, both personal and public. It's crushing. Each additional dollar of public debt is having a negative real effect on the economy. Of course, the crushing level of bureaucracy and costs of running a small business are a big part of the problem as well. The economy is paralyzed by debt and regulatory uncertainty.
If Japan can manage as a majority-services economy, we can too. Manufacturing doesn't make the world suddenly better.
I know I'll get a lot of shit for this but good riddance. I hope it never comes back. I've felt this way since I found my stolen accounts posted on Pastie and they ignored requests to take it down.
The scope of learning to code seems overwhelming. Finding small bugs in syntax and design is stressful. What I'm supposed to learn (language, style, syntax, frameworks) seems to change faster than I can learn it. I wish I would have started all of this earlier ... like when I was 10.