or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Briefly: 1M BlackBerry PlayBooks, Wikipedia founder calls App Store "dangerous," more evidence for iPad 2 cameras
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Briefly: 1M BlackBerry PlayBooks, Wikipedia founder calls App Store "dangerous," more evidence... - Page 4

post #121 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Speaking in a "purely personal capacity" at an event in Bristol, England, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said app stores like Apple's iOS App Store can act as a "chokepoint that is very dangerous."

It is time to ask if the model was "a threat to a diverse and open ecosystem," Wales continued. "We own [a] device, and we should control it."

Oh, please. If I buy a KitchenAid mixer, am I really supposed to be offended that only KitchenAid attachments work on it? Is that a "very dangerous" kitchen neutrality chokepoint?

Quote:
During the speech, Wales also highlighted a lack of diversity among contributors to Wikipedia, which will celebrate its 10th anniversary on Saturday. 87 percent of contributors are male, with an average age of 26, and twice as likely to have PhDs as the general population. Wales hopes to improve the site's diversity by simplifying Wikipedia's editing system.

So would he prefer that uneducated, technically unsavvy people contribute? I don't know about the gender split, but it seems that PhD-earning 20-somethings aren't so bad to have helping you out.
post #122 of 127
Wales is correct about net neutrality, and would be more correct if he simply juxtaposed his complaint about the App Store with his assessment of net neutrality: net neutrality, in practice, is basically government control of the way the Internet works, and therefore the content available. The justifying rationale for net neutrality is entirely hypothetical. The FCC as the dangerous chokepoint of the Internet is exactly accurate.

As for simplifying Wikipedias editing process, thats not really necessary. Whats needed is a total overhaul of the group of people who determine final say on a Wikipedia article. Talk about disgraceful.
post #123 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincytee View Post

So would he prefer that uneducated, technically unsavvy people contribute? I don't know about the gender split, but it seems that PhD-earning 20-somethings aren't so bad to have helping you out.

No, but 20 something PhDs are probably postdocs and have more time than $$ on their hands. He wants significantly more well-to-do contributors to see his puppy dog eyes please contribute pleas.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #124 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post

I appreciate the App Store because I like the idea of apps being filtered and moderated to a certain extent. Just look at the mess that the "open Internet" has created for desktop operating systems in the last 30 years... it's a mess. The App Store is a clean, vetted source of apps, quality or otherwise. At least I know I won't have to wade through crap masquerading as legitimate products, like all of those "camera and printer driver" websites out there.

+1. Thank you from an English-language pedant for not using the word "curate" in your comment.
post #125 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post

Wikipedia is often great for a first look to get an overview of the establishment point of view. Obviously there are conflicting viewpoints on many matters and how those are treated frames the picture. As usual anything that conflicts with the bankers point of view in a serious way gets removed or overwhelmed such as the global warming issue, opposing voices get erased. Not completely though, just enough remains to give the semblance of neutrality, independence and so it ends up as controlled opposition.

The only way to guarantee winning is to control both sides.

It is clear why Wales would attack Apple, think different, oops, can't have that!

Almost every controversial or historical (current history) article has been whitewashed in wikipedia.
post #126 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by lav1daloca View Post

The fact that they demand a premium price for the device isn't enough, they need to get a share of the revenues from applications which are programmed by third parties which Apple had no investment whatsoever. They are making money off of enslaved developers and the only ones profiting off of apps is mostly Apple. That's 21st century slavery!

If this doesn't smell like an international class-action lawsuit then i don't know what is.


So do you think there is no cost to distribution if you want to sell your wares outside the app store? 30% is cheap for the number of eyeballs your app will be in front of and elimination of all the other overhead associated with distribution makes it a very good deal. The fact that Apple distributes fee apps and bares the cost 100% is great too. It's not a far stretch to think that a good portion of the nearly 10 billion apps downloaded from the app have been gratis.

Enslaved developers? um ok. I only see developers that chose to develop for the platform. They could have not developed or only chose android (some have actually). Jobs is not cracking a whip over a bunch of slaves coding away in a dungeon somewhere. It's very funny how many people who criticized apple for entering the phone market and predicted it would be DOA now criticize them for not allowing unregulated access to the most popular to develop for mobile platform ever.
post #127 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by lav1daloca View Post

Well I'm pretty sure it's illegal what Apple practices, but because the governments are so damn corporate-friendly they led this slide.

When you buy Apple's product then it's your product, you give money in exchange for an iPhone, that makes it your device which you can do whatever you want with it. Having it locked from Apple so you can't install 3rd party programs from 3rd party venues is illegal because Apple is restricting you from using your device however you want.

That's like buying a PC from HP and you would only be able to install programs from an HP virtual store. Apple goes even further, it won't allow a program unless it's been approved by them.. hellooo? Doesn't anyone see how illegal this is???

The fact that they demand a premium price for the device isn't enough, they need to get a share of the revenues from applications which are programmed by third parties which Apple had no investment whatsoever. They are making money off of enslaved developers and the only ones profiting off of apps is mostly Apple. That's 21st century slavery!

If this doesn't smell like an international class-action lawsuit then i don't know what is.

If the lawyer taking this case had a single brain cell in his head, he would charge by the hour. Then, he can enjoy his riches and laugh at the plaintiffs who paid him. You actually think this is "21st century slavery!" On second though, I think you're just being a troll, but in case you aren't, let me educate you on some things.

The "premium" that Apple demands has meaning only if you actually open your wallet and fish out a few bills. Until then, Apple is in no way forcing you to buy its products. If you think it's greed or so-called "21st century slavery," vote with your wallet and don't buy anything made by Apple. But please, quit crying foul over perfectly legitimate business practices.

And here's a little tidbit. Apple has paid out over $1 billion dollars to developers. The $1 billion figure was announced on June 7, 2010 when Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone 4. Since then, the number of total downloads has nearly doubled, from 5 billion downloads in June 2010 to almost 10 billion now. The $1 billion payout figure has likely increased.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Briefly: 1M BlackBerry PlayBooks, Wikipedia founder calls App Store "dangerous," more evidence for iPad 2 cameras