Briefly: 1M BlackBerry PlayBooks, Wikipedia founder calls App Store "dangerous," more evidence... - Page 2

Well I would say that's not even accurate. There are more iOS devices out there than just iPhones, like iPod touches and wifi iPads. So while your heart is in the right place with your argument, it's not a very good one to make.

Personally I like the walled garden. Why? Superior user experience. Superior, quality apps. No messing around with things that may not work. Why in the world would I want to give that up for a chaotic, half-broken ecosystem with inferior apps and inferior user experience?

Developers can actually make money with iOS, I like that. It encourages top development, best of breed software, innovation and competition. If I want to get an app to remote control my desktop PC I have a lot of choices. I find this to be a huge positive for everyone... Apple, the developers and end users. Where is the practical downside? It doesn't exist. Who is losing out in this scenario? Hackers and thieves.

And as pointed out before, if I don't like all of these advantages I can take my money somewhere else. What makes anyone think they have the right to tell a private business how to run their business?

Maybe it was a child under five with a PhD who contributed the fact "that frank discussion of necrophilia in their hit "Wake Up, Little Susie," led them to receive the nickname "fraternal godfathers of heavy metal.""

There's nothing I like better than a frank discussion of necrophilia, so I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia called this to my attention in their article on the Everly Brothers.

As has been said a few times, Apple can do what it wants with its own products and applications. If you owned a business, how would you like someone like you telling you how you can sell or market your product, and that you need to be punished for not doing so. Answer is that as long as you are operating within legal parameters, you wouldn't.

So again, show Apple your discontent by not purchasing their products and move on.

Wales can shut his lying mouth as far as I'm concerned. Don't like the app store? Don't participate. It's frigging games and utilities for crying out loud. Is he completely god**** crazy? Wikipedia is a threat to Internet freedom if I've ever seen one. It's a 50% fact, 50% lying bullsh** website, it's the number one search result in Google (lending it artificial credibility), and touts itself as the encyclopedia of the world. For as long as they allow officlal party lines to remain in place of truth, THEY are biggest threat to Internet freedom that I can think of.

What the hell does legitimate mean? Is Cydia in some way Not "legitimate"? Give it a rest.

Punished by the EU? What are you some kind of globalist whack job? The EU should be punished for existing and flexing it's muscle where it doesn't belong. Sovereignty works just fine, thank you very much.

That might come into his thinking, who knows? It's an interesting thought, but it's false. No, here's the thing:

Malls, and WALMART, destroy that localized economy. The mom and pop stores have to shut, they can't compete with the big box retailers or the new developments full of entertainment in the suburbs. And mom and pop can't afford to move out of the little store they have had for fifty years in order to rent space in a premium area. Their business dies.

Is that what the App Store is doing? No, quite the opposite. So, we have a few less unsophisticated websites to visit and trawl through looking for apps. Does that restrict the landscape of the net in the same way malls kill the town center? The only similarity is that "everything is in one place".

Rather, small-time developers can now compete with software houses that could afford to have high-profile websites and shelf space in physical stores and costly and sophisticated methods of distribution. The terms, benefits, exposure and services provided by the App Store are great for... small developers (the mom and pop shops of the internet landscape). And the consumer. The App Store levels the landscape, disproportionately helping the small developer who wouldn't be able to distribute internationally otherwise. The developer can concentrate on his product and have it delivered without being a website designer or businessman. More win-wins with this scenario.

"Fewer traffic to smaller independent software houses."? No, far more business for these smaller houses. Just read the success stories of independent, one-man houses who are getting the exposure and downloads and revenue of the big boys. Am I going to go find some crappy website that I read about on some geeky blog somewhere; and work out what to do to get my purchase downloaded and installed and working; and worry about the security of their payment processing; what about the worry that I may end up getting a pirate copy instead of paying the developer for the real thing? No, I'm just going to fire up the App Store app and put money directly into the small developer's pocket.

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.

It almost sounds like the new iPad wont be the iPad 2, but the iPad AV, or some other less major update, such as the iPhone 3GS was to the 3G.

And the App Store is not a threat to freedom, it's an example of freedom. A company is offering a product and no-one is being forced to buy it. If they don't like curated apps then don't buy it.

Speaking for myself, I prefer this model. Life's too short to be arseing about with malware.

And Jeez, you'd think Jimmy would be grateful to have a disproportionate number of PhDs editing Wikipedia.

The total cost of the device much higher than just the BOM + margin cost of the device it also incorporates the R&D cost and so on.

What would have happened if there was no App Store then either no one would have cared about it and used the Internet just how you use it today or would have just used it like the Nokia phones that used be 10 years ago.

The store keeper decides what product he would like to sell it at his store just like the car Manufacturers. If this is illegal then so is the entire automobile industry.

Jimmy, you have the freedom to use something else.

What really scares him and the FOSS-nicks in the industry is that consumers are actively CHOOSING to partake of Apple's controlled system. Mostly because they're sick of putting up with the kind of garbage user experiences provided by "open" and uncontrolled distribution systems. This has nothing to do with the internet qua Internet, buy rather Apple's own ecosystem. If there is any trend toward closed ecosystems, controlled media dostribution models, it is entirely consumer driven.

And you CAN do whatever you want with it - haven't you figured that out yet?? I mean really the cupidity of the above statements reads like a wrong-headed open source manifesto. Just stop.

For the umpteenth time - you friggin' don't haven't to do jack in the App Store - you can jailbreak your friggin' iDevice and do whatever the hell you want with it! Or better yet, rather than lose sleep over what one, minority player company in the wide technology universe is doing - buy from HP, or Moto, or RIM, or Samsung, or Dell or any of the many other mfgrs who are successfully offering similar devices in the marketplace. I mean, WTF?? You have all this freedom and you gripe about one little company who doesn't do business according to your glorious freedom for all mentality. Can you even wrap your head around the silliness of your statements?

Why do you persist in demanding that Apple on one hand guarantee a seamless experience for you and then turn around and demand that you be openly allowed with no discomfort whatsoever to do whatever the hell you want with your device with no repercussions? I'm serious - just stop this nonsense.

If you want to do whatever on your iDevice - jailbreak and get on with your life, living with whatever, if any, consequences come your way as a result of that decision. It ain't hard and there are great tools and apps out there waiting for you if you do. If you want a largely seamless and comfortable experience you can leave it as is out of the box and enjoy the quality of the apps that reside in the App Store. See - it's freedom baby - it's very cool.

But for the love of technology just stop the complete and utter nonsense about Apple locking the iDevice and you being tied helplessly to the railroad tracks of their marketing, app and device system. It just sound utterly stupid.

Let's see... projects launched by Jimmy Wales:

Nupedia -- failure.
Openserving -- failure.
Search Wikia -- failure.
CiviliNation -- failure.

Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia, so we'll credit him with its success.

Somebody remind us, why are we listening to what Jimmy Wales thinks?

You're either 14 years old, or on way too many psychotropic drugs. Either way, you know absolutely ZERO about law.

The Apple terms are as good as if not better than anyone else's. It hasn't stopped anyone from developing and making money if they want to: 99 bucks and 30%.

No investment? The whole App Store is an investment. They take care of hosting, payment processing, bandwidth and distribution; shelf-space and presentation and exposure and rating system; and upgrade mechanism, etc. Most small developers sound extremely happy with the deal and getting 70% (of the price the developer sets) put smoothly into their bank account.

You sound like one of these politically-correct, mightily indignant, do-gooders enslaved to mere appearances. Are you a developer "enslaved" to Apple? Or do you just presume to speak for all these developers who don't find it worth their while to develop for any other platform any more? At the least, you must be enslaved to the fanciful notions of what passes for definitions of "Open" and "monopoly" these days.

I'd like a class action against Google for doing who-knows-what with my private data while they hide behind their goodness and openness. That's exploitation and corrupt power!

Wiki has moderators that monitor the content that is posted onto Wikipedia. This is exactly the same thing that Apple does with the Apps. Both of them are moderating and filtering what the consumers see. Based on what Wikipedia does, not what he says, Wikipedia believes that the internet needs moderation from people who want to post inaccurate information and/or spam. I find what he says to be incredibly hypocritical based on the policies enforced at Wikipedia.

I agree. I went to a Verizon store a few weeks ago and played with one. But my point is there is demand - quite a bit more than I would have though before the release of the Galaxy - for that size.

Does Jimmy Wales have some personal agenda here? I can't think what on earth he is talking about nor why he thinks he is in a position to make such a comment. Does he feel the same about the myriad of Apple copycat's 'app stores' too or just Apple's?

Really? People can buy whatever apps they want (including none at all), and developers can get paid for their work. Where's the harm? Not every developer wants to work for free (or can afford to). This guy seems to have gone off the "open sores" rails.


Here's a novel idea; how about simplifying the editing system to make it easier to determine when an edit was made, and in what context (from the whole-document perspective).

I'm not suggesting what they should or shouldn't do on their App Store, that's their App Store and if people go buy at that store then they oath to respect their rules. But they shouldn't be allowed to hinder people if they want to install an app from some other place/store. Why do I have to jailbreak and possibly break my phone free just because I want to install a program on it. Do you jailbreak your PC before you install a program on it? Obviously this is directed at all closed system smartphone OS's (BB, WP7, webOS)

That's like buying a car and only be allowed from your car maker to fill up your tank at Chevron with a specifically made tank whole where only Chevron can access it, if you don't obey then your warranty is void. How would you react to that?

People getting upset and defending Apple on this one are either on Apple's payroll or they are so brainwashed that they don't see how illegal this is.

Don't follow what you're saying here: that Galaxy sales are > 1M?

If so, I'd love to see a cite.

Yes, please get more old uneducated women to write for Wiki!!!

Excellent question. I agree.

Of course BlackBerry won't sell as many Playbooks as Apple sold iPads. If Apple took cow turds and threw an apple logo on them and branded them iTurds, about 3 millions Apple followers would buy them in the first two months.

BlackBerry doesn't have as many cult members, thus won't sell as many tablets.

What rock have you been living under?? They sold over 1M by the beginning of December.... they are probably at 2M by now with the holiday season and all.

Cite, or shut.

Oh I should add: (i) tech writers telling me that "Samsung says 1 million sold" does not cut it; they could very well have shipped 1 million, and it's all sitting there in the distribution channel, but not sold it; (ii) I'd like to see a cite for an official Samsung press release, e.g., from their website.

Ever wondered why Apple has a loyal following? Perhaps it's because they make excellent products ...

Yes, funding for Wikipedia -- i.e., his salary.

Spare us the BS!

Macs have always been treated as second-class citizens in the retail world. Go into ANY computer store and check out the Mac software titles. There are VERY few. So where is a non-geek user to go?

Typical Mac users (not us here) may have a tough time finding applications they may need. Most don't know about and/or won't spend time digging around MacUpdate or VersionTracker or scouring web sites searching for apps or comparisons of titles. Never mind simply downloading and trying things out.

Remember, there are loads of Windows converts who have been taught to FEAR their computers and especially downloading, installing and deleting things at will. For them, that's a dumb and dangerous thing to do!

We longtime Mac users are quite spoiled in that regard.
For us it's: Hunt. Download. Install. Try. Pay for it or Trash it. Or just use it. Simple.

There's a fairly large and diverse number of third-party Mac developers who have written some excellent Mac software over the years. For them, having an Apple approved (safe) place to display and sell their wares is good for them, users and Apple. Win. Win. Win.

So, in that regard, the App Store will be a godsend not only for users, but also for developers.

And how many of those were returned?
I bet those numbers won't leak out.

I am sick of seeing this guy's face (and big f. ego) plastered all over every wiki page (as a personal appeal for donations) over the past couple of months or so.

Wikipedia's ok for casual info, but in terms of anything that matters it's full of lies, misinformation, and petty "editors" with an agenda putting it across over other users who might be more impartial and better informed but who don't have the time to devote and can't handle the fascist way wikipedia is run by blocks of editors with vested interests, who expurgate, whitewash and push their views across. And all that anonymously, and all that favoring some schmucks who for some strange reason seem to have too much time on their hands (maybe by virtue of getting pocket money from elsewhere for their editing and not needing to work...) to be online 24/7 dominating discussions, locking topics, reverting edits based on technicalities, and not letting anyone else's but their own views to be put across.

Back when I didn't know any better I tried suggesting an edit to an article only to hear arguments such as "we have already reached a consensus on this one in the talk page", and you go to the talk page and the same 5-6 people who think the article is their pet or their back yard, having reached a "consensus". And lo and behold if you try to raise a point, because as per wiki policies editors should be civil and assume good will, which translates to being self entitled and being bullies to anyone trying to modify what these precious few policing their articles as hawks have said.

That's freedom of information and knowledge courtesy of Jimbo Wales!

They should have hired professional editors, people who are qualified, and who would be accountable for what they write, and who'd write eponymously. These are the ones who should be responsible for the general management of the content, not some unknowns, who are unaccountable, and are curiously spending all their lives in wikipedia with no compensation what so ever (well not evident to any of the users at least...) But they don't care to clean up the mess.

How strange then that this guy talks about danger and freedoms, seemingly oblivious of the fact of what his site is doing for freedom and objectivity. It's not surprising that he used to run an adult oriented, quasi porn, quasi gambling website before wikipedia, he's brought the same ethos along to wikipedia. And now all of a sudden it's apple's fault for helping (finally!) developers actually make some profit off of their creations with the app stores, instead of good old pc paradigm of having people just steal their work.

Another bozo, joining the ranks of bozos who are on apple's case just because these days bad mouthing apple gives you easy publicity.

The Apple App Store is not dangerous. It's no more dangerous to "Internet freedom" than iTunes was. If anything, the pressure iTunes exerted on the music industry helped to open up standard formats and access to media like never before, over the Internet, from countless sources. The only danger the "App Store" poses is to Apple itself. If Apple's customers reject that type of distribution model for applications, then Apple will lose customers - it does nothing to the Internet.

Watch Fox News much?

+1

This IS required reading by all naysayers and bashers of the App Store!

Au contraire mon frere. And I 'd appreciate it if next time you replied to my arguments.

Yes you SHOULD add.... all you have to do it do a Google search of "galaxy tab sells million" and TONS of tech sites have it listed as early December. No idea if Samsung has it on their site or not.

Your response is Exhibit A for why Wikipedia has an authenticity issue too.

Go do some real work now, such as peddling Galaxy Tabs.

deleted

It’s been stated as such. The PlayBook looks to be much more appealing in many ways so I expect it to fly past the Tab. It also shows that conumers now want tablets and 7” tablets at that… even if they are pretty shitty.

•

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...d_at_600k.html

• http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...es_hit_1M_mark
PS: I have a feeling many of these Tab owners have buyer’s remorse, much like netbook owners.

Are you that uninformed that you think Fox News has anything to do with it?

Fox is as full of crap as CNN, and round and round it goes.

All an informed individual has to do is search certain topics on Wiki to fully appreciate the disinformation campaign being run through that website. As I posted before, it holds exactly 50% irrefutable fact, and 50% complete bs lies.

Choice #1:
You as a consumer can choose which phone to buy

Choice #2:
You as a consumer have the choice of installing any application from the AppStore

Choice #3:
You as the owner of an iOS device have the choice of doing what you want with it, including jailbreaking it or throwing it against the wall.

Not a Choice:
What you cannot choose to do is tell Apple how to run their business or how they're going to make/design their own products. They make a product, you either like it or you don't. It's really that simple. And I'm not just defending Apple here, I'm defending anyone's desire and ability to create something.

You can't go to a car dealership and expect a car with three wheels.

You can't go to Best Buy and expect that they sell computers with 5 1/4 floppy drives.

You can't expect H.264 support in FireFox from Mozilla.

You can't expect Verizon to remove pre-installed crap ware from their phones.

You can't go to an art gallery and expect that a piece of art be modified more to your liking.

Just because you can "Have it Your Way" at Burger King doesn't mean McDonald's is going to listen to your demands as well.

Sorry, but even companies have the "Freedom of Choice!"... the freedom to make a product anyway they want and present it the consumer and leave it up to them to decide if they want to buy it or not.

"Freedom of Choice" does not mean there must be different choices. It means the freedom to choose when there is a choice. Your freedom of choice does not give you the right to force someone else to do it your way, which would be to take away their freedom of choice.

The AppStore only exists because Apple decided to open up development on the iPhone. How about Apple chooses to shut it down? What it make you happier if you didn't have any choices at all? 6 million original iPhones were sold with zero app choices other than what came on the device.

How about Apple chooses to discontinue all iOS devices? Would having one less smart phone choice make you happier? It would definitely give one less thing to complain about.

What I don't understand is people's sense of entitlement... Someone creates something. It didn't exist before, now it exists. Instead of letting other people enjoy this thing, there are people who feel "gipped" because it wasn't created in a way that makes sense to them, so instead of just letting those people who do enjoy it have it, these people feel they need to protest until it is changed to something more in agreement with their sensibilities. They could move on and continue to look for something else that might be better for them, but apparently they'd rather spend their time being disgruntled and complain about it.



You're right about making sure a company behaves responsibly in society and communities, but I just don't see how restricting your choice of apps down to a measly few hundred thousand is being socially irresponsible? It is after all just a consumer electronics device that YOU chose to pick up and use.

Society and communities are usually governed by laws and rules. There has to be some form of control, otherwise there is no society. If everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, society would not exist. Boundaries are outlined and marked; this is what you can do, this is what you can't do. These simple rules define and make up society. So on one hand you're all for "society" and on the other you object to Apple governing its own products and store?

To think that corporations are the dog and you're the master is way too idealistic. If ALL a company was interested in is in making money, then yes, this would be true. However, if a company is genuinely interested in building the best products they think they can make, then they tend to try and make them regardless of how their customers feel about it or even asking their customers what they think about it.