iOS6 'Do Not Disturb' bug - is one bad Apple rotting the whole barrel?

[djr33]

But what WOULD be considered a "new version"? I get what you're saying, but it seems unrealistic to me. If we take the example of let's say Adobe Photoshop, it's gone from about v5 through v7 then "CS1" (=8) through "CS6" (=13) or whatever it's on now, since I've been familiar with it (in about 13 years). That's roughly v5-v13, or 8 in 13 years, so one every year or two. (Plus many subversions including some semi-important ".5" updates.)
To me, that's how I judge a "version" of a program:
1) there's the rate factor-- it's about a year or more between versions, nothing crazy like Firefox. But not something like 10 years.
2) there's the compatibility factor-- the newer versions aren't backwards compatible and often require updating for new features. True for the iPhone (some apps) and Photoshop, but not for Firefox (at least not much).
3) there's the impact factor-- generally they seem like updates. However, the changes aren't hugely substantial as if you're buying a completely redesigned program. For Photoshop, the change from 7 to CS1 was major because it changed some aspects significantly; it was like a whole new product, perhaps entirely rewritten. But the other versions can still be "versions" I think. For example, you must pay again to get an upgrade but not when it's a minor version (maybe also you would pay for a .5 upgrade sometimes).

On the other hand, I find the version numbers for OSX-- they just want to call it all "10" so they pretend they're not OS11 and OS12, but they really are. (I could also rant/ramble about how they name them after stranger and stranger cats... but that's off topic... )

[bernie1227]

1) there's the rate factor-- it's about a year or more between versions, nothing crazy like Firefox. But not something like 10 years.

There's a difference between the rate that's viable to produce software than there is hardware as well as something on the scale of an operating system. If you think about it, Apple's going about as fast as they can produce this kind of thing.

2) there's the compatibility factor-- the newer versions aren't backwards compatible and often require updating for new features. True for the iPhone (some apps) and Photoshop, but not for Firefox (at least not much).

I'm a little confused with this one, you're saying that it has to be not backwards compatable in order to be a new version?

3) there's the impact factor-- generally they seem like updates. However, the changes aren't hugely substantial as if you're buying a completely redesigned program. For Photoshop, the change from 7 to CS1 was major because it changed some aspects significantly; it was like a whole new product, perhaps entirely rewritten. But the other versions can still be "versions" I think. For example, you must pay again to get an upgrade but not when it's a minor version (maybe also you would pay for a .5 upgrade sometimes).

Actually this is a good one, if no-one cares then it's not really a new version, it's just small update.

On the other hand, I find the version numbers for OSX-- they just want to call it all "10" so they pretend they're not OS11 and OS12, but they really are. (I could also rant/ramble about how they name them after stranger and stranger cats... but that's off topic... )

I have a picture from xkcd relating to this (as I do for everything).




Yeah, I see what you're saying, what I'm talking about however, is that there us not that much difference between the versions then there are with something like internet explorer or microsoft windows.

[djr33]

There's a difference between the rate that's viable to produce software than there is hardware as well as something on the scale of an operating system. If you think about it, Apple's going about as fast as they can produce this kind of thing.

Not really. I'm sure there are slight improvements as they release more phones (very small adjustments) and certainly many minor updates to the OS. Plus the "S" versions of the phones, which aren't called new versions (maybe reasonably so).
That is... I think they're going at a reasonable pace and naming the right new versions new versions.

Of course the people who think they absolutely must have each next iPhone are basically insane. That's a separate issue. But you find the same thing with updates to operating systems or software, and then you also have people still happily using Windows XP and so forth.

I'm a little confused with this one, you're saying that it has to be not backwards compatable in order to be a new version?

That wasn't clear, you're right-- 'm referring to the opposite of backwards compatibility-- not that the upgrade can't handle old stuff, but that the old version can't handle the new stuff-- a full version upgrade usually makes the old version obsolete. For example, you can't really use Windows XP any more and get full functionality out of the newest computers/hardware and can't install all of the newest software. (It's still very usable, as is my iPhone 3GS, but there are some apps I can't install for example.)

Actually this is a good one, if no-one cares then it's not really a new version, it's just small update.

Right. Like every version of Google Chrome ever produced. They're still actually on version 1. (They're just bad at counting!)

Yeah, I see what you're saying, what I'm talking about however, is that there us not that much difference between the versions then there are with something like internet explorer or microsoft windows.

Only the latest versions of those-- IE 5-7 (those I'm familiar with) aren't very different. Admittedly 7 has a lot of compatibility fixes, but it looks the same as the others. And for Windows, it was more or less the same from 95-XP-ME-2000 (and I prefer it that way ), with big changes in Vista, as sort of the transition model to 7 and 8.

And, although I don't care that much, some improvements on the phones are really significant. One is the retina display, which is MUCH better (well, at least higher resolution; it's still tiny so I don't see the point), and another is the much improved camera (which is worth it). Then the ability to do 4G as well. The size/shape changed a bit, and the OS is really tied to the phone, which has also been updated (but hasn't changed too much, in comparison), and it's only available for older phones just to keep the OS consistent for apps.



Haha, that cartoon is great. And it's true. Silly. Perhaps I should look into copyrighting some of those important cats, like creating an operating system named "Saber-tooth", which I can choose to sell to Apple, if they're willing to pay enough. (Or do they already own all cat-named OS names? Perhaps Wolf and so forth too? I'll grab the shark names while I'm at it-- OSXII.4 Hammerhead and OSXII.7 Great White, plus OSXII.9 Wobbegong.) Should we make this a DD project/investment?

[bernie1227]

Not really. I'm sure there are slight improvements as they release more phones (very small adjustments) and certainly many minor updates to the OS. Plus the "S" versions of the phones, which aren't called new versions (maybe reasonably so).
That is... I think they're going at a reasonable pace and naming the right new versions new versions.

I'm sure it's harder to mass produce hardware than it is software.

Of course the people who think they absolutely must have each next iPhone are basically insane. That's a separate issue. But you find the same thing with updates to operating systems or software, and then you also have people still happily using Windows XP and so forth.

The only people who need every apple decice are IOS devs, to see if their app works on the latest platform.

Right. Like every version of Google Chrome ever produced. They're still actually on version 1. (They're just bad at counting!)

Ever heard of sorites paradox?

Only the latest versions of those-- IE 5-7 (those I'm familiar with) aren't very different. Admittedly 7 has a lot of compatibility fixes, but it looks the same as the others. And for Windows, it was more or less the same from 95-XP-ME-2000 (and I prefer it that way ), with big changes in Vista, as sort of the transition model to 7 and 8.

However, there's more difference, time and hype between/about each new one than iPhones.

and the OS is really tied to the phone, which has also been updated (but hasn't changed too much, in comparison), and it's only available for older phones just to keep the OS consistent for apps.

I disagree here, I think the biggest change has been in IOS, even if you don't see a lot of the changes.

Haha, that cartoon is great. And it's true. Silly. Perhaps I should look into copyrighting some of those important cats, like creating an operating system named "Saber-tooth", which I can choose to sell to Apple, if they're willing to pay enough. (Or do they already own all cat-named OS names? Perhaps Wolf and so forth too? I'll grab the shark names while I'm at it-- OSXII.4 Hammerhead and OSXII.7 Great White, plus OSXII.9 Wobbegong.) Should we make this a DD project/investment?

[/quote]
Of course, if you were to copyright the actual names, marine biologists wouldn't be able to call them that Same thing with when Disney attempted unsuccesfully to copyright the name of whatever SEAL team it was that eventually got bin laden, which would mean that the US army would not be allowed to call that SEAL team that, so it would effectively no longer exist. Of course I get that you meant copyrighting OS names, but you'd have the problem that OS X is copyrighted by apple, so you'd have to buy it oof them before selling it back to them at a cheaper price. Not a good investment if you ask me

[djr33]

The only people who need every apple decice are IOS devs, to see if their app works on the latest platform.

Depends on your definition of "need". Some Apple-obsessed people (who wouldn't know the difference from an off-brand product except for the Apple logo) would claim they "need" them

Ever heard of sorites paradox?

Hm, interesting. But the catch here is that I don't really think it's on to the next version yet. More importantly, there's no rule that says subversions can add up to significant changes, if it's all gradual. A new release should be a jump, with new features that make it worth more than the last subversion of the previous one. My perspective on it at least.

Of course, if you were to copyright the actual names, marine biologists wouldn't be able to call them that Same thing with when Disney attempted unsuccesfully to copyright the name of whatever SEAL team it was that eventually got bin laden, which would mean that the US army would not be allowed to call that SEAL team that, so it would effectively no longer exist. Of course I get that you meant copyrighting OS names, but you'd have the problem that OS X is copyrighted by apple, so you'd have to buy it oof them before selling it back to them at a cheaper price. Not a good investment if you ask me

Well, I meant for a computer operating system. If I create an operating system (yes, even a bad one) and call it "Bobcat", then I could sue Apple if they ever use the same name for their operating system. I wouldn't use "OSX" in the title, but they couldn't, for example, call something "OSX 10.8 Windows", since Microsoft owns that name as applied to operating systems. Likewise if I create "Bobcat" they can't use that. (Someone should have done that with Lion; it was obviously coming. At this point I have no idea what's coming next, though. Perhaps Tabby.)

[There are rules about "inevitable discovery" so perhaps that argument could be made-- Apple is so obsessed with cats they'd eventually find "Bobcat" ]

[bernie1227]

Depends on your definition of "need". Some Apple-obsessed people (who wouldn't know the difference from an off-brand product except for the Apple logo) would claim they "need" them

Economics 101: There is a different between needs and wants.

Hm, interesting. But the catch here is that I don't really think it's on to the next version yet. More importantly, there's no rule that says subversions can add up to significant changes, if it's all gradual. A new release should be a jump, with new features that make it worth more than the last subversion of the previous one. My perspective on it at least.

Just because there are significant changes, doesn't mean it's a new version, it just means that there have been significant changes between now and the start of chrome's innings

Well, I meant for a computer operating system. If I create an operating system (yes, even a bad one) and call it "Bobcat", then I could sue Apple if they ever use the same name for their operating system. I wouldn't use "OSX" in the title, but they couldn't, for example, call something "OSX 10.8 Windows", since Microsoft owns that name as applied to operating systems. Likewise if I create "Bobcat" they can't use that. (Someone should have done that with Lion; it was obviously coming. At this point I have no idea what's coming next, though. Perhaps Tabby.)

[There are rules about "inevitable discovery" so perhaps that argument could be made-- Apple is so obsessed with cats they'd eventually find "Bobcat" ]

How about we slap a copyright on "Lynx"? That sounds the most likely to me

[djr33]

Economics 101: There is a different between needs and wants.

But they'd still disagree. They needs their precious Apples-es!

Just because there are significant changes, doesn't mean it's a new version, it just means that there have been significant changes between now and the start of chrome's innings

Isn't that what I said?

How about we slap a copyright on "Lynx"? That sounds the most likely to me

Perhaps, but there's already the browser Lynx, and the competing OS Linux, and Microsoft Linc, so I think they might avoid that confusion.

[bernie1227]

But they'd still disagree. They needs their precious Apples-es!

Isn't that what I said?

probably :P

Perhaps, but there's already the browser Lynx, and the competing OS Linux, and Microsoft Linc, so I think they might avoid that confusion.

OS X common-garden-cat?

[djr33]

I know! OSXI Kitten.

[jscheuer1]

What about Chartreux or Bombay?

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cat_breeds

Wirehair would perhaps be apropos.