The ironic thing is that dumbphones generally had no restrictions on installing your own Java apps, so the iPhone is actually a step back in that regard.
how can you call them that when you are not allowed to install your own software on those devices? Calling them computers is something I refuse and I suppose hacker news people understand why.
At work, I'm not allowed to install arbitrary software as well - but policy doesn't make my workstation any less of a computer. Also, not all smartphone vendors are as anal as Apple, and there are always workarounds [1],[2].
I don't think we actually disagree - it's just a matter of definition; please note that I intentionally didn't say (personal) computer, but (general-purpose) computing device.
I would draw the line at what the device's technical capabilities are, not what I am "permitted" to do.
If you use permission in your definition then it becomes impossible, by definition, to restrict the use of a computer. If Dell's next cheap desktop was locked down like Apple locks their devices down, would you buy "Well it's not a computer you know, since you are not allowed to run what you want on it."? No, of course you wouldn't.
Comments
The iDevices are NOT computers.
In contrast to 'dumbphones' or some so-called 'feature phones', the current generation of smartphones are general-purpose computing devices.
The ironic thing is that dumbphones generally had no restrictions on installing your own Java apps, so the iPhone is actually a step back in that regard.
That's the norm with Apple, remember "You don't really need MMS and Cut/Copy/Paste do you?"?
how can you call them that when you are not allowed to install your own software on those devices? Calling them computers is something I refuse and I suppose hacker news people understand why.
At work, I'm not allowed to install arbitrary software as well - but policy doesn't make my workstation any less of a computer. Also, not all smartphone vendors are as anal as Apple, and there are always workarounds [1],[2].
I don't think we actually disagree - it's just a matter of definition; please note that I intentionally didn't say (personal) computer, but (general-purpose) computing device.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooting_%28Android_OS%29
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking
I would draw the line at what the device's technical capabilities are, not what I am "permitted" to do.
If you use permission in your definition then it becomes impossible, by definition, to restrict the use of a computer. If Dell's next cheap desktop was locked down like Apple locks their devices down, would you buy "Well it's not a computer you know, since you are not allowed to run what you want on it."? No, of course you wouldn't.