What are you talking about? We need to see the thing first before we sell our children and decide how much of a revolution it actually is. If this thing runs iPhone OS I won't buy it.
As a fellow tablet fan from way back I have to agree with you... Apple needs to BUTT-OUT of what software I want to use on its computers. I don't need Steve and his merry band of App Store Scrutinizers trashing everything and anything they like (or more to the point, don't like). I'm a BIG BOY Steve, I can choose for myself what I can and can't install on the hardware I purchase (and a Hefty premium I might add). Take that choice away from me and you've lost me as a customer.
To quote a real genius:
"There's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."
Okay maybe not... However, I still won't tolerate the Apple Gestapo shit-canning apps for politically motivated reasons and/or reasons unknown. If an application isn't a bug ridden virus infected apps and it doesn't violate the law in the country/state or province in which Apple is distributing it then the software should be approved for distribution no ifs ands or buts.
In the US we don't allow the government to censor what we can and can't have access to (yea this is debatable but roll with me on this) then why on earth should we give that kind of power to a computer company? Could you imagine for a minute if MS tried to pull this kind of stunt with Windows? We wouldn't see the end of the government investigations into the business practices of Microsoft for years and years and years.
This is an excellent point: that a newspaper is not synonymous with news itself. Newspapers are just a medium and that medium, unlike 100 years ago, is today only one of many available. What was IN the newspaper was distinct from the newspaper itself and had no relation to or was defined by the medium (up to a point-- audio and video are not available in newspapers). I suppose in a way you could say reading news on one of these devices is still just reading a 'newspaper', but that's like the original autos being called 'horseless carriages'... seeing the future through a rear view mirror. But like a car is so much more than a horse, the Internet is much more than a hand held newspaper. I don't just mean it has audio and video...it can access information instantaneously and directly...no filters...unadulterated by a biased rendering or perspective. Or perhaps we get to select our own editors. This is in contrast to an editor-in-chief for a newspaper or TV/Radio program. Editors are middlemen second guessing public interest with economics in mind. My only legitimate concern is that people lose their common denominator by withdrawing into their own select spheres of interest, never knowing what their next door neighbors are reading.
The biggest problems with the news media today, no matter the format, is the lack of in depth investigative journalism and the ever increasing political bias of the news sources. There seems to be no trusted "independent" voice anymore and news is given in 30 second sound bites then on to "opinions" and "analysis" rather than stating the facts. As we move to Blogs and iReports this is bound to get worse as educated professional journalists are replaced with the man on the street.
To be honest I thought movies and the web would be enough but who am I. The e-books and E-magazines market though is very compelling and wide open to innovation.
I think movies might be a stretch but who knows... I can't imagine sitting in an airplane watching a 2 hour movie while holding a tablet at arms length the entire time so I guess that tablet better have a kickstand of some sort.
I still see the tablet much more as an 'enabler' that you pickup get something you need done and drop to go back to whatever you were doing.
Like:
o While watching TV surf the web to find out the name of that ACTOR/ACTRESS who you KNOW you've seen before but can't remember where and all the while your wife telling you how wrong you are.
o Waking up and checking the traffic and weather without having to turn on the TV and listen to the "morning news people" drone on about some actress and what she got caught doing the night before.
o Read the news, magazine, catch up on email while you carpool to work.
o Review reports and presentations.
o Sneek-a-peek the sports scores while company is over.
o Change the music in your whole house audio system in the most WICKED way imaginable.
o Ditto for controlling your whole house media center.
o Games up the wazoo...
Finally...
o Determining if you should dump the warp core and abandon ship.
Lots of 1 way type functions...
Mostly 'data OUT' and minimal 'data IN'.
Thats how I see it anyway and notice the restraint I demonstrated in not once mentioning porn.
As a fellow tablet fan from way back I have to agree with you... Apple needs to BUTT-OUT of what software I want to use on its computers. I don't need Steve and his merry band of App Store Scrutinizers trashing everything and anything they like (or more to the point, don't like). I'm a BIG BOY Steve, I can choose for myself what I can and can't install on the hardware I purchase (and a Hefty premium I might add). Take that choice away from me and you've lost me as a customer.
To quote a real genius:
"There's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."
Okay maybe not... However, I still won't tolerate the Apple Gestapo shit-canning apps for politically motivated reasons and/or reasons unknown. If an application isn't a bug ridden virus infected apps and it doesn't violate the law in the country/state or province in which Apple is distributing it then the software should be approved for distribution no ifs ands or buts.
In the US we don't allow the government to censor what we can and can't have access to (yea this is debatable but roll with me on this) then why on earth should we give that kind of power to a computer company? Could you imagine for a minute if MS tried to pull this kind of stunt with Windows? We wouldn't see the end of the government investigations into the business practices of Microsoft for years and years and years.
Dave
So, for what appears to be a handful or so of apps, you're willing to give up the entire 85,000+ universe of apps that do exist now, and that will likely reach 100,000 before the end of the year?
Seems nuts to me.
I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but all other phone makers are going to or are already limiting to some extent what you can install on your phone.
If it uses the iPhone OS, that's what it will be. Though Apple will possibly change some aspects.
The funny thing about this is that hardly anyone cares about those few apps. If that weren't the truth, Apple wouldn't have sold more than 50 million of those products so far, with every indication of a lot more being sold over the next year.
And they know it.
In theory, I'm not any happier about it than you are, but in practice, I don't see it as a big deal.
They have some obligations to AT&T that they must meet, as every other phone manufacturer does to every carrier they sell to. They also have their own universe of products they want to protect. That's not unusual either.
Even Android developers are complaining about what Google won't let them do. Palm? Forget it,. They're WORSE than Apple. Supposedly with Win Mobile 7, MS will be limiting apps to their own store as well, and Nokia sys they won't, but it's so difficult developing for them that it may not matter. As far as RIM is concerned, there are problems there too. It's expensive getting into the environment for a developer just for a start.
Where does that leave everyone?
If Apple's tablet is compelling, and based on the iPhone platform, it will be unique.
Newspapers also have fact checkers, at least all the bigger and better ones do.
By the times when fact checking fails, we can see what would happen if there wasn't a newspaper controlling the writers.
All we would have is the undisciplined bloggers we have today, claiming to be reporters and news media, but actually no better than biased paid for shills of certain creeds. There's too much of that now.
I think you have a trust in main streamed media that fewer of us have anymore. Most newspapers today aren't much more than what the National Enquirer was a generation ago. It's especially bad when a reporter (working under an editor) has to 'explain' a poll, statistical survey or study...never sure to believe if they are writing out of need2sell or ignorance. When over 90% of reporters and editors are registered to one political party, that's more than just a warning sign. Trust no one. I'm not into undisciplined bloggers either. Your last line says it all: we already have the problem with conventional editors. You're right that editors do a lot than that [edit], which is exactly the problem. I like things a little out of control...better that way. Just my preference.
So, for what appears to be a handful or so of apps, you're willing to give up the entire 85,000+ universe of apps that do exist now, and that will likely reach 100,000 before the end of the year? Seems nuts to me.
Perhaps you're right, a handful today and we all shut our mouths and smile... then its developers who get singled out as Persona non grata, as we remain silent and smiling then maybe entire application genres that are being put off limits since Apple feels they want those specific areas all to themselves. We still shut up and smile.
Just one question:
When exactly should we speak up about how Apple is conducting itself?
After all the potential competition is force out of the market?
What good would it do then?
It's amazes me that people I though were so liberal (in fact too liberal for my tastes normally and a big reason I stay away from certain forum areas) are so willing to roll over and allow a corporation to, at the press of a button cut off any application it wants, any time it wants for any reason it wants AND has proven it has no reservations about pressing that button for any reason at all... Even to the point where they don't even feel then need to explain their actions.
People willing to simply roll over and take it and chalk it up to... well we still have 100,000 other apps so its okay...
Well let me ask you... lets pretend its 15 years ago and http/html wasn't yet invented and one of the Applications that Apple chose to axe was a never before heard of 'web browser'.
A web browser? We've never even heard of it, and its ONLY 1 silly little app that Apple cut, what impact could it POSSIBLY have when you consider the 100,000 really cool iFart apps Apple still allows us to buy and install?
So, whatever the next 'web browser' turns out to be (industry changing software) chances are pretty good that Apple will do everything in its power to make sure if they aren't doing it or don't like it then nobody using an Apple based device will even have access to it.
To put simply, imagine if when the web first got started Microsoft had the power Apple has now and at the press of a button prevent the distribution of NSCA Mosaic on every Windows based PC in the world what would the world be like today?
But hey it was only one program that hardly anyone cared about...
Any HEY we WERE Mac users at one time... and understood that it always came down to QUALITY not QUANTITY.
I think you have a trust in main streamed media that fewer of us have anymore. Most newspapers today aren't much more than what the National Enquirer was a generation ago. It's especially bad when a reporter (working under an editor) has to 'explain' a poll, statistical survey or study...never sure to believe if they are writing out of need2sell or ignorance. When over 90% of reporters and editors are registered to one political party, that's more than just a warning sign. Trust no one. I'm not into undisciplined bloggers either. Your last line says it all: we already have the problem with conventional editors. You're right that editors do a lot than that [edit], which is exactly the problem. I like things a little out of control...better that way. Just my preference.
I don't prefer your way at all.
While some of the public may not be happy with newspapers, that's mostly because of the cost. Most papers do a good job. The one thing you do know about papers is where they stand editorially, because they will tell you up front.
Bloggers are mostly an incompetent lot. They don't reveal who is paying them to say what, and you have no idea if what they're saying is anywhere near the truth. Unlike with papers, or news magazines, I don't see bloggers getting fired because they made up their articles' "facts".
Perhaps you're right, a handful today and we all shut our mouths and smile... then its developers who get singled out as Persona non grata, as we remain silent and smiling then maybe entire application genres that are being put off limits since Apple feels they want those specific areas all to themselves. We still shut up and smile.
Just one question:
When exactly should we speak up about how Apple is conducting itself?
After all the potential competition is force out of the market?
What good would it do then?
It's amazes me that people I though were so liberal (in fact too liberal for my tastes normally and a big reason I stay away from certain forum areas) are so willing to roll over and allow a corporation to, at the press of a button cut off any application it wants, any time it wants for any reason it wants AND has proven it has no reservations about pressing that button for any reason at all... Even to the point where they don't even feel then need to explain their actions.
People willing to simply roll over and take it and chalk it up to... well we still have 100,000 other apps so its okay...
Well let me ask you... lets pretend its 15 years ago and http/html wasn't yet invented and one of the Applications that Apple chose to axe was a never before heard of 'web browser'.
A web browser? We've never even heard of it, and its ONLY 1 silly little app that Apple cut, what impact could it POSSIBLY have when you consider the 100,000 really cool iFart apps Apple still allows us to buy and install?
So, whatever the next 'web browser' turns out to be (industry changing software) chances are pretty good that Apple will do everything in its power to make sure if they aren't doing it or don't like it then nobody using an Apple based device will even have access to it.
To put simply, imagine if when the web first got started Microsoft had the power Apple has now and at the press of a button prevent the distribution of NSCA Mosaic on every Windows based PC in the world what would the world be like today?
But hey it was only one program that hardly anyone cared about...
Any HEY we WERE Mac users at one time... and understood that it always came down to QUALITY not QUANTITY.
Dave
I don't find your analogy to be useful. Apple allows other browsers on the iPhone, there are a bunch of them. True, they must use Webkit, but that's a good thing. We do want open standards, right? That insures it, as almost every other mobile device's browsers are based on Webkit.
You want to make an assumption that Apple will continue to narrow the scope that third parties have in writing programs for the platform, but theres no evidence that this is so.
Apple has spelled out a few (a very few) areas they reserve for themselves, or to contractual obligations. I don't find this to be a problem.
If you can show that they are expanding this wall as time goes on, then please do so. The OS can do more now than it could first do when it was released. Far more. So now some developers are bumping against some of the few limits Apple has placed, where before, it wasn't possible, because of the lack of support in the OS. This doesn't mean that Apple is restricting more and more, just that more of the original restrictions are being exposed to programmers.
After all, Apple didn't allow ANY programs at first, except for their own, and a couple of others such as Google Maps. Apple could have just written programs on their own, and we likely would now have a couple of hundred well written ones to get. Reviewers would be asking why other phone platforms weren't done that way, and why Apple's programs were so much better than those on other platforms. Most people would be happy with that. But they chose to open it up drastically.
I just don't see how some people can't understand that they didn't have to do that at all, and it would still have sold very well.
So Apple thinks; "We'll open up 99.9% of the OS and hardware for outside development, and keep a couple of what we want to be tightly integrated features to ourselves, and honor our contracts to the carriers.
Wow! How terrible!
I have no sympathy for people complaining about that.
To say I'm sorry would be a lie though. Guy keeps saying "Dave" at bottom of every comment, I think it's worth pointing out. We know he's called Dave. It's a fair point.
To say I'm sorry would be a lie though. Guy keeps saying "Dave" at bottom of every comment, I think it's worth pointing out. We know he's called Dave. It's a fair point.
It doesn't matter. There are a bunch of people here who do that. It's not against the rules, and so why single him out?
What's the better alternative? Take a chance on one or take a chance on many?
You mean take a chance on known entities or folks behind a pseudonym? I use folks on the net as "editors" now. Like scoble. I know his biases more or less. He has a real name, a real face and a real reputation. The WSJ, the NYT, etc are the same on a much grander scale.
But what the heck, I'm arguing with someone that thinks that between 2002 and 2009 the number of journalists that were democrats went from 36% to 90%.
Possible given Bush and the general trend of educated folks moving from the republican party to the democratic one (we lost bankers for heaven's sake, wtf?) but not all THAT likely. Odds are that in 2012 we'll be in that same 16-18% republicans, 34-32% independents and 44%-36% democrats that we saw from 1992 to 2002.[1]
--
[1] The American Journalist in the 21st Century (Erlbaum, 2006)
Comments
What are you talking about? We need to see the thing first before we sell our children and decide how much of a revolution it actually is. If this thing runs iPhone OS I won't buy it.
As a fellow tablet fan from way back I have to agree with you... Apple needs to BUTT-OUT of what software I want to use on its computers. I don't need Steve and his merry band of App Store Scrutinizers trashing everything and anything they like (or more to the point, don't like). I'm a BIG BOY Steve, I can choose for myself what I can and can't install on the hardware I purchase (and a Hefty premium I might add). Take that choice away from me and you've lost me as a customer.
To quote a real genius:
"There's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."
Okay maybe not... However, I still won't tolerate the Apple Gestapo shit-canning apps for politically motivated reasons and/or reasons unknown. If an application isn't a bug ridden virus infected apps and it doesn't violate the law in the country/state or province in which Apple is distributing it then the software should be approved for distribution no ifs ands or buts.
In the US we don't allow the government to censor what we can and can't have access to (yea this is debatable but roll with me on this) then why on earth should we give that kind of power to a computer company? Could you imagine for a minute if MS tried to pull this kind of stunt with Windows? We wouldn't see the end of the government investigations into the business practices of Microsoft for years and years and years.
Dave
This is an excellent point: that a newspaper is not synonymous with news itself. Newspapers are just a medium and that medium, unlike 100 years ago, is today only one of many available. What was IN the newspaper was distinct from the newspaper itself and had no relation to or was defined by the medium (up to a point-- audio and video are not available in newspapers). I suppose in a way you could say reading news on one of these devices is still just reading a 'newspaper', but that's like the original autos being called 'horseless carriages'... seeing the future through a rear view mirror. But like a car is so much more than a horse, the Internet is much more than a hand held newspaper. I don't just mean it has audio and video...it can access information instantaneously and directly...no filters...unadulterated by a biased rendering or perspective. Or perhaps we get to select our own editors. This is in contrast to an editor-in-chief for a newspaper or TV/Radio program. Editors are middlemen second guessing public interest with economics in mind. My only legitimate concern is that people lose their common denominator by withdrawing into their own select spheres of interest, never knowing what their next door neighbors are reading.
The biggest problems with the news media today, no matter the format, is the lack of in depth investigative journalism and the ever increasing political bias of the news sources. There seems to be no trusted "independent" voice anymore and news is given in 30 second sound bites then on to "opinions" and "analysis" rather than stating the facts. As we move to Blogs and iReports this is bound to get worse as educated professional journalists are replaced with the man on the street.
To be honest I thought movies and the web would be enough but who am I. The e-books and E-magazines market though is very compelling and wide open to innovation.
I think movies might be a stretch but who knows... I can't imagine sitting in an airplane watching a 2 hour movie while holding a tablet at arms length the entire time so I guess that tablet better have a kickstand of some sort.
I still see the tablet much more as an 'enabler' that you pickup get something you need done and drop to go back to whatever you were doing.
Like:
o While watching TV surf the web to find out the name of that ACTOR/ACTRESS who you KNOW you've seen before but can't remember where and all the while your wife telling you how wrong you are.
o Waking up and checking the traffic and weather without having to turn on the TV and listen to the "morning news people" drone on about some actress and what she got caught doing the night before.
o Read the news, magazine, catch up on email while you carpool to work.
o Review reports and presentations.
o Sneek-a-peek the sports scores while company is over.
o Change the music in your whole house audio system in the most WICKED way imaginable.
o Ditto for controlling your whole house media center.
o Games up the wazoo...
Finally...
o Determining if you should dump the warp core and abandon ship.
Lots of 1 way type functions...
Mostly 'data OUT' and minimal 'data IN'.
Thats how I see it anyway and notice the restraint I demonstrated in not once mentioning porn.
Dave
I pour, but I don't drink
So you're a pusher then!
I sincerely hope that it doesn't run the iPhone OS! (In its current guise.)
As a fellow tablet fan from way back I have to agree with you... Apple needs to BUTT-OUT of what software I want to use on its computers. I don't need Steve and his merry band of App Store Scrutinizers trashing everything and anything they like (or more to the point, don't like). I'm a BIG BOY Steve, I can choose for myself what I can and can't install on the hardware I purchase (and a Hefty premium I might add). Take that choice away from me and you've lost me as a customer.
To quote a real genius:
"There's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."
Okay maybe not... However, I still won't tolerate the Apple Gestapo shit-canning apps for politically motivated reasons and/or reasons unknown. If an application isn't a bug ridden virus infected apps and it doesn't violate the law in the country/state or province in which Apple is distributing it then the software should be approved for distribution no ifs ands or buts.
In the US we don't allow the government to censor what we can and can't have access to (yea this is debatable but roll with me on this) then why on earth should we give that kind of power to a computer company? Could you imagine for a minute if MS tried to pull this kind of stunt with Windows? We wouldn't see the end of the government investigations into the business practices of Microsoft for years and years and years.
Dave
So, for what appears to be a handful or so of apps, you're willing to give up the entire 85,000+ universe of apps that do exist now, and that will likely reach 100,000 before the end of the year?
Seems nuts to me.
I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but all other phone makers are going to or are already limiting to some extent what you can install on your phone.
If it uses the iPhone OS, that's what it will be. Though Apple will possibly change some aspects.
The funny thing about this is that hardly anyone cares about those few apps. If that weren't the truth, Apple wouldn't have sold more than 50 million of those products so far, with every indication of a lot more being sold over the next year.
And they know it.
In theory, I'm not any happier about it than you are, but in practice, I don't see it as a big deal.
They have some obligations to AT&T that they must meet, as every other phone manufacturer does to every carrier they sell to. They also have their own universe of products they want to protect. That's not unusual either.
Even Android developers are complaining about what Google won't let them do. Palm? Forget it,. They're WORSE than Apple. Supposedly with Win Mobile 7, MS will be limiting apps to their own store as well, and Nokia sys they won't, but it's so difficult developing for them that it may not matter. As far as RIM is concerned, there are problems there too. It's expensive getting into the environment for a developer just for a start.
Where does that leave everyone?
If Apple's tablet is compelling, and based on the iPhone platform, it will be unique.
Editors do a lot more than that.
Newspapers also have fact checkers, at least all the bigger and better ones do.
By the times when fact checking fails, we can see what would happen if there wasn't a newspaper controlling the writers.
All we would have is the undisciplined bloggers we have today, claiming to be reporters and news media, but actually no better than biased paid for shills of certain creeds. There's too much of that now.
I think you have a trust in main streamed media that fewer of us have anymore. Most newspapers today aren't much more than what the National Enquirer was a generation ago. It's especially bad when a reporter (working under an editor) has to 'explain' a poll, statistical survey or study...never sure to believe if they are writing out of need2sell or ignorance. When over 90% of reporters and editors are registered to one political party, that's more than just a warning sign. Trust no one. I'm not into undisciplined bloggers either. Your last line says it all: we already have the problem with conventional editors. You're right that editors do a lot than that [edit], which is exactly the problem. I like things a little out of control...better that way. Just my preference.
How amusing...you're trading in one set of gatekeepers for a bunch of unknowns...namely blog writers and other "unfiltered" sources of information.
What's the better alternative? Take a chance on one or take a chance on many?
So, for what appears to be a handful or so of apps, you're willing to give up the entire 85,000+ universe of apps that do exist now, and that will likely reach 100,000 before the end of the year? Seems nuts to me.
Perhaps you're right, a handful today and we all shut our mouths and smile... then its developers who get singled out as Persona non grata, as we remain silent and smiling then maybe entire application genres that are being put off limits since Apple feels they want those specific areas all to themselves. We still shut up and smile.
Just one question:
When exactly should we speak up about how Apple is conducting itself?
After all the potential competition is force out of the market?
What good would it do then?
It's amazes me that people I though were so liberal (in fact too liberal for my tastes normally and a big reason I stay away from certain forum areas) are so willing to roll over and allow a corporation to, at the press of a button cut off any application it wants, any time it wants for any reason it wants AND has proven it has no reservations about pressing that button for any reason at all... Even to the point where they don't even feel then need to explain their actions.
People willing to simply roll over and take it and chalk it up to... well we still have 100,000 other apps so its okay...
Well let me ask you... lets pretend its 15 years ago and http/html wasn't yet invented and one of the Applications that Apple chose to axe was a never before heard of 'web browser'.
A web browser? We've never even heard of it, and its ONLY 1 silly little app that Apple cut, what impact could it POSSIBLY have when you consider the 100,000 really cool iFart apps Apple still allows us to buy and install?
So, whatever the next 'web browser' turns out to be (industry changing software) chances are pretty good that Apple will do everything in its power to make sure if they aren't doing it or don't like it then nobody using an Apple based device will even have access to it.
To put simply, imagine if when the web first got started Microsoft had the power Apple has now and at the press of a button prevent the distribution of NSCA Mosaic on every Windows based PC in the world what would the world be like today?
But hey it was only one program that hardly anyone cared about...
Any HEY we WERE Mac users at one time... and understood that it always came down to QUALITY not QUANTITY.
Dave
Dave
We didn't quite get your name yet, you may want to type at the bottom of each and every comment just in case. You can never be too careful out there.
Dave
We didn't quite get your name yet, you may want to type at the bottom of each and every comment just in case. You can never be too careful out there.
Do you mock everyone that signs their posts? I'm not the only one and if this is all you have to say on the topic that says quite a bit in itself.
Do you mock everyone that signs their posts? I'm not the only one and if this is all you have to say on the topic that says quite a bit in itself.
Now, see how easy it was.
I think you have a trust in main streamed media that fewer of us have anymore. Most newspapers today aren't much more than what the National Enquirer was a generation ago. It's especially bad when a reporter (working under an editor) has to 'explain' a poll, statistical survey or study...never sure to believe if they are writing out of need2sell or ignorance. When over 90% of reporters and editors are registered to one political party, that's more than just a warning sign. Trust no one. I'm not into undisciplined bloggers either. Your last line says it all: we already have the problem with conventional editors. You're right that editors do a lot than that [edit], which is exactly the problem. I like things a little out of control...better that way. Just my preference.
I don't prefer your way at all.
While some of the public may not be happy with newspapers, that's mostly because of the cost. Most papers do a good job. The one thing you do know about papers is where they stand editorially, because they will tell you up front.
Bloggers are mostly an incompetent lot. They don't reveal who is paying them to say what, and you have no idea if what they're saying is anywhere near the truth. Unlike with papers, or news magazines, I don't see bloggers getting fired because they made up their articles' "facts".
Perhaps you're right, a handful today and we all shut our mouths and smile... then its developers who get singled out as Persona non grata, as we remain silent and smiling then maybe entire application genres that are being put off limits since Apple feels they want those specific areas all to themselves. We still shut up and smile.
Just one question:
When exactly should we speak up about how Apple is conducting itself?
After all the potential competition is force out of the market?
What good would it do then?
It's amazes me that people I though were so liberal (in fact too liberal for my tastes normally and a big reason I stay away from certain forum areas) are so willing to roll over and allow a corporation to, at the press of a button cut off any application it wants, any time it wants for any reason it wants AND has proven it has no reservations about pressing that button for any reason at all... Even to the point where they don't even feel then need to explain their actions.
People willing to simply roll over and take it and chalk it up to... well we still have 100,000 other apps so its okay...
Well let me ask you... lets pretend its 15 years ago and http/html wasn't yet invented and one of the Applications that Apple chose to axe was a never before heard of 'web browser'.
A web browser? We've never even heard of it, and its ONLY 1 silly little app that Apple cut, what impact could it POSSIBLY have when you consider the 100,000 really cool iFart apps Apple still allows us to buy and install?
So, whatever the next 'web browser' turns out to be (industry changing software) chances are pretty good that Apple will do everything in its power to make sure if they aren't doing it or don't like it then nobody using an Apple based device will even have access to it.
To put simply, imagine if when the web first got started Microsoft had the power Apple has now and at the press of a button prevent the distribution of NSCA Mosaic on every Windows based PC in the world what would the world be like today?
But hey it was only one program that hardly anyone cared about...
Any HEY we WERE Mac users at one time... and understood that it always came down to QUALITY not QUANTITY.
Dave
I don't find your analogy to be useful. Apple allows other browsers on the iPhone, there are a bunch of them. True, they must use Webkit, but that's a good thing. We do want open standards, right? That insures it, as almost every other mobile device's browsers are based on Webkit.
You want to make an assumption that Apple will continue to narrow the scope that third parties have in writing programs for the platform, but theres no evidence that this is so.
Apple has spelled out a few (a very few) areas they reserve for themselves, or to contractual obligations. I don't find this to be a problem.
If you can show that they are expanding this wall as time goes on, then please do so. The OS can do more now than it could first do when it was released. Far more. So now some developers are bumping against some of the few limits Apple has placed, where before, it wasn't possible, because of the lack of support in the OS. This doesn't mean that Apple is restricting more and more, just that more of the original restrictions are being exposed to programmers.
After all, Apple didn't allow ANY programs at first, except for their own, and a couple of others such as Google Maps. Apple could have just written programs on their own, and we likely would now have a couple of hundred well written ones to get. Reviewers would be asking why other phone platforms weren't done that way, and why Apple's programs were so much better than those on other platforms. Most people would be happy with that. But they chose to open it up drastically.
I just don't see how some people can't understand that they didn't have to do that at all, and it would still have sold very well.
So Apple thinks; "We'll open up 99.9% of the OS and hardware for outside development, and keep a couple of what we want to be tightly integrated features to ourselves, and honor our contracts to the carriers.
Wow! How terrible!
I have no sympathy for people complaining about that.
why couldn't authors sell directly to apple for this tablet idea, cut out the publisher, we would then get it cheaper
If Apple wanted to become a publisher, they could. They would just have to hire a number of editors, lawyers, an advertising agency, etc.
Why would they want to do that?
Do you mock everyone that signs their posts? I'm not the only one and if this is all you have to say on the topic that says quite a bit in itself.
Now, see how easy it was.
Come on guys, this isn't necessary.
Ireland, just say you're sorry.
Come on guys, this isn't necessary.
Ireland, just say you're sorry.
To say I'm sorry would be a lie though. Guy keeps saying "Dave" at bottom of every comment, I think it's worth pointing out. We know he's called Dave. It's a fair point.
To say I'm sorry would be a lie though. Guy keeps saying "Dave" at bottom of every comment, I think it's worth pointing out. We know he's called Dave. It's a fair point.
It doesn't matter. There are a bunch of people here who do that. It's not against the rules, and so why single him out?
Beside, why do you care?
It doesn't matter. There are a bunch of people here who do that. It's not against the rules, and so why single him out?
Beside, why do you care?
I'm a care-bear!
I wasn't singling him point, just pointing it out. I don't care about the color of your names, just the content of your comments.
What's the better alternative? Take a chance on one or take a chance on many?
You mean take a chance on known entities or folks behind a pseudonym? I use folks on the net as "editors" now. Like scoble. I know his biases more or less. He has a real name, a real face and a real reputation. The WSJ, the NYT, etc are the same on a much grander scale.
But what the heck, I'm arguing with someone that thinks that between 2002 and 2009 the number of journalists that were democrats went from 36% to 90%.
Possible given Bush and the general trend of educated folks moving from the republican party to the democratic one (we lost bankers for heaven's sake, wtf?) but not all THAT likely. Odds are that in 2012 we'll be in that same 16-18% republicans, 34-32% independents and 44%-36% democrats that we saw from 1992 to 2002.[1]
--
[1] The American Journalist in the 21st Century (Erlbaum, 2006)