The Sick Lion

I just tried to install Mac OS X Lion (10.7) on my Macbook. It was probably the worst installation I have ever experienced. Lion crashed and killed my admin user so I could only log in as a normal user with no rights. There is basically no way of a clean install unless you format the entire disk. The @«€&-?! installer has to be downloaded every @«€&-?! time which takes forever. It was more fun to install System 7 off floppy disks.

Update:
After having wiped my disk, I am no longer able to activate FileVault because the recovery partition has also been wiped and not been reinstalled by the Mac OS X Lion Installer. The whole process is so unbelievably stupid. Does anyone at Apple even have tested this? I am currently downloading the installer for the 4th time... Un-@«€&-?!-believable...

Update 2:
OK, it was not the recovery partition. It is there. But FileVault just does not work. I reinstalled the system. I reset the PRAM. I checked file system integrity. I checked and repaired (there were errors!) file permissions. All to no avail.

I must say this is one of the worst experiences I have ever, ever had with any Apple product.

These problems are probably related to FileVault. Apart from FileVault the clean install system seems to work just fine. But… I’ll stick with Snow Leopard until I get FileVault to work. And, frankly, I would like my money back. That’s why you should not run a .0-release if you want things to just work. Apple’s software is no exception here. I should have known better.

Trivial Patents

After “One Click” now “In App Purchase”. A patent system that grants such obviously trivial patents is seriously flawed and is hurting economic activity.

I mean, seriously, who can deny that anybody could come up with the idea of making it easy to buy something in a shop. Likewise anybody could come up with the idea that you can buy updates though an application itself. This is blatantly trivial.

A patent on this is a bad patent. It takes away from society something society already had, instead of giving society something new. Claiming money for “the use” of that idea is parasitic. A society that accepts—or even promotes—that kind of parasitic behaviour is doomed to fall behind.

The Lodsys case is one more good reason to not grant patents on software at all. Software patents mostly just take trivial real world ideas and claim them to be new when used via a computer. Additionally, those patents do not claim the implementation but the idea.

Maybe, even quite surely there are certain technical implementations that are theoretically worth to be granted patent protection. It’s just that the misuse or abuse of software patents is already so bad that I am currently totally opposed to software patents.

Addendum:
I am having a hard time thinking of anything more absurd and ridiculous than Lodsys’ claims. I mean, read this: »OMG! Cross promotion in "More Games" violates Lodsys' patent too!«
Well, maybe the Hyperlink Patent.

Addendum (2):
Apparently, the EU offers better market conditions for app developers than the US just by not granting software patents (as yet, knock on wood): “App developers withdraw from US as patent fears reach ‘tipping point’” (Guardian)
[Via Daring Fireball]

Apple Still Can Blow It

As mentioned in recent posts: With the iPhone OS, the App Store and the iPad Apple has a huge potential to change how people will use computers and read books and magazines.

But …

Apple still can blow it

… if they do not change their admission policy to the App Store and/or allow users to install other software than apps delivered via the App Store.

On the publishing side the main problem is political censorship by Apple. That of course should be totally unacceptable for any newspaper or magazine publisher.

On the software development side the main problem seems to be the vagueness and/or obscureness of Apple’s criteria for the rejection of software from the App Store.

Update:
If Apple just continues to behave like this, they can have the best system in the world technologically (IMHO they have), but will still loose against their competitors.

The iPad Will Revolutionize Publishing (And That’s Not All)

Despite the iPad’s negative reception in the tech blogoshere (for example the Engadget team’s reaction, or compare this »Fake Steve« video or David Appleyard’s somewhat feeble defence of the iPad) …

I am convinced that the iPad will not only revolutionize modern computing but also will revolutionize publishing.

Today there are printed journals, HTML-web-pages and—already—iPhone (and iPod) apps for many journals, which have their own native interface. Since iPhone screens are very small those native clients are an addition to regular printed journals or web pages but certainly no replacement.

Now imagine those native journal clients optimized for the iPad!

That is a whole new world for publishing. Journals will have full multimedia capabilities, no restrictions due to HTML, CSS or Javascript limitations (although those clients will almost certainly use these technologies), and most importantly …

they will be able to use micropayment via the AppStore and In App Purchase.

Thus Publishers will eventually be able to earn money with their electronic publishing just like the can charge for their printed journals. Even more, they can easily introduce new payment options like time-based subscription, pay-per-article, pay-per-quota, you name it! They can even create opt-in or opt-out models for advertisement. People who despise most ads (like me) can pay for ad-free publications. Or people who don’t care or even like ads might be able to pay a budget price for publications with ads.

Apart from that I still think that the iPad shows us today how computing for the masses will work tomorrow. Apple IMHO has just released the most important electronic device of the new century. Just watch the revolution take place!

P.s.:
I surely didn’t come up with this; check Om Malik’s article from back in February 2009: »Can Apple Please Kick-start Micropayments?«

Or read the following article by the German news magazine »Die Zeit«, with a more skeptical undertone but recognizing the iPad’s potential: »Symbol der neuen Ordnung«. Google translation: »Symbol of the new order«. Or view this pro/con discussion: »Is the IPad (sic) Publishing’s Saviour?« or watch this video on Forbes: »Apple iPad: Publishing Saviour?«.

P.p.s.:
I must say that I wrote some of the above in some sort of naïve ardour. Much depends on how strong the momentum (i.e. market share) of the iPad will be. Paying options depend on Apple’s terms for the App Store. But I still think that to a large extent the future of reading is electronic, now that I have seen a device that, both, aesthetically and in terms of usability, can compete with books and journals.

Update:
The CEO of Axel Springer, a German newspaper publishing corporation, says the iPad is starting a new era, says Steve Jobs is saving the publishing industry:

• Article on Heise Online (German).
• A video of the interview (English). Note: You should ignore the second half of the interview in which the CEO expresses his right wing conservative political views, although it is interesting, almost funny—and a little frightning—how fond this self-proclaimed defender of democracy and freedom is of China’s non-democratic version of capitalism (“It’s a very interesting version! You don’t have to discuss. You just do. You’re very efficient!”).

Update p.s.:
Of course the content industry can always screw up, also on the iPod. It seems the first Axel Springer newspaper app is terrible: Article on Netzwertig.com (German).