or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Blastdoor

You're looking at this from a some kind of fairness/morality perspective (and a fairly arbitrary one so far as I can tell), and that's not what it's about. Adobe had chosen to handle the PDF standard in a way that they think makes sense. Apple is choosing to handle the development of their iPlatform in a way that they think makes sense. The two companies have taken different approaches -- not surprising since a computer platform and a file format are two fundamentally...
Yup -- life is hard. This is true in any business. It's not that I don't sympathize -- I definitely do. I work in a business that is very client-focused. And my coworkers and I often whine about the clients, often for good reason. That whining is kind of a coping mechanism, and everybody does it. But there's a difference between cathartic whining among friends and bitterness that impairs one's ability to deal with reality.
Wow, I guess this all explains why there are so few apps in the app store and why Mac sales have dwindled over the last few years.
I would like to suggest that apple insider (and macrumors and macsurfer etc) consider moving these lawsuit stories off the main page and onto a lawsuit-specific page for people who are interested in such things. I'm not saying that I have no interest, but I do have a very limited interest in this stuff. I'd much rather see front page stories that are more technology or product focused. Let me put it this way -- if we are going to have front page stories on lawsuits,...
The FTC might give Apple a second shot at AdMob.
So the thing that seems to be missing from my perspective is document management. But maybe this is already there with 3.2? I might be confused. What I would really like to see is a common directory for document storage that all apps can access so that each individual app doesn't have to roll its own solution to document storage and transfer. I guess I've heard that Pages, Numbers, and Keynote use something like this, but I haven't bought those apps for my iPad, so I...
I think it's pretty clear... there are 7 modes of "multitasking", and different modes will involve different levels of battery drain. I'm sure they will encourage developers through the app review process to use the mode that gets the job done for a specific app and no more. For example, they will probably encourage the vast majority of developers to use rapid app switching rather than full multitasking.
It sounds like they've done a great job here. They've done something very targeted and balanced. Instead of letting background apps go hog wild, they are giving developers just what they need and nothing more. This is smart. And I just hope the app review process dings developers who misuse these features. Remember developers -- it's not about you. It's about me (the consumer).
I'm not aware of any cutoff. I think its a matter of a company being large enough so that its anti-competitive behavior really does hurt consumers. If Palm decided that they would refuse to sell the Pre to any network that sells competing products, Palm would just go out of business. But if Microsoft decided that they would not sell Windows to a PC company that sold other operating systems, then it's the PC company that would go out of business, not Microsoft. In that...
Looking at it strictly from Apple's perspective, it still makes no sense. Apple makes money selling iDevices, not from selling their own apps for those devices. For example, pinch-zooming is primarily a Safari thing, but Apple doesn't charge for Safari -- Safari comes standard. It makes perfect sense to sue someone for selling another device that uses this approach. But to deny apps for the iPhone because they use features that make the iPhone worth buying? That's stupid.
New Posts  All Forums: