or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Blastdoor

agreed -- I wonder if people will start trying to access the iPad version instead of the main version from their PCs. That would really send a signal about how people feel about Flash...
It's not a bad approach when it's free (like gmail beta). I'm not sure that someone who pays several hundred dollars for a phone would think it's such a great approach, though.
I understand that perspective, but I tend to agree with Apple. If people want to make a web app, they can do whatever they want without any censorship from apple. So if somebody wants to make a HotBoobs webapp (or whatever), they can do that. Apple is just controlling what can be a native app. I suspect that the vast majority of the 150,000 apps could just as easily be web apps.
So I just have to ask -- what "kind of person" do you think I am, oh holy judger of judges? I can't wait to hear this.
I think you vastly underestimate the extent to which Apple's customers want that type of "censorship." Two big apple customers are school districts and parents. Right there you've got a sizable chunk of people who are very much in favor of controlling risque stuff. Add to them all of the prudes, feminists, and religious conservatives, and you're talking about a pretty sizable chunk of people. Also, I seriously doubt that censoring risque material has anything to do with...
You appear to be implicitly equating "slick, polished" with "closed, sanitized". I don't think those are equivalent at all. Outside of the EFF, nobody is saying "oooh, check out the rounded, curvy opensourcedness of my laptop!" Consumers don't care about inputs, they care about outputs. The extent to which a product is "open" or "closed" is just one of many inputs. And when it comes to "slick and polished" I think you're more likely to find closed-source inputs than...
I agree. But I suspect that his real gripe here has nothing to do with "censorship" of controversial or sexual content. This sounds like a cover for an open-source type ideology. He's not concerned about consumer freedom, he's concerned about developer freedom. Those aren't exactly the same things. I think Apple has the right approach, because they are putting consumer experience above ideology (or, perhaps consumer experience is their ideology).
Yeah, I agree that clearly someone has to pay. My point is that corporate IT is willing to pay Microsoft, because Microsoft really does cater to them. I am no fan of MS, but I have to admit that they do pay much more attention to the needs of IT than Apple does. Basically, MS can say to IT -- here's a phone that fits in perfectly with all of your other MS-based infrastructure ("ecosystem", if you will). Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but just as Apple's brand carries a...
I think IT loves MS because IT is MS's primary customer, and so MS treats IT much better than they treat you and me. Seems to me that it breaks down like this -- Google's primary customer is advertisers (with Google, you and I are not the customer -- we're the product). Microsoft has two main clients: OEMs and corporate IT. Apple has one client: consumers (aka, "end-users"). So you see, MS only needs to make a product that is just good enough for consumers to be willing...
It's because MS has incredible sway over corporate IT. You just can't ignore or underestimate that. IT *loves* MS. All MS has to do is create a phone that won't cause users to revolt, and they'll sell a ton of them to corporations. My company's IT group had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the president of the company and several VPs to accept employees using their personal iPhones for work e-mail, and that was only because those top guys flat out refused to use a...
New Posts  All Forums: