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 took me too literally. My intention when I said browser like technology was to convey the concept of what the browser once stood for. Today, the browser is a standard feature not a 'game-changing' application. I was simply using browser as a way to covey the concept of a groundbreaking new vision, a 'killer app++'. What will that next 'kill app++' be? Who knows but we'll certainly know it when we see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
Okay we can agree to disagree on this point but Apple pulling the rug out from under GV was done for politically motivate reasons, thats how I see it anyway... AT&T made a statement to the FCC indicating they had no part in the decision to nuke GV and Apple said it hasn't even rejected the app in the first place... Is anyone actually buying into any of these answers?!?
Are you actually expecting me to believe that with a few UI changes GV will someday be approved? And what about the other Google app they had to give up on since it too was never going to be approved in native form and had to resort to a lesser web based version of the app that Apple had no control over? My current line of thinking is Google couldn't write a 'Hello World' native app and get it approved by Apple. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this but all the current signs seem to point in my direction.
So can we now conclude, with a certain level of confidence that Google has been effectively blackballed from the App Store? I'll let you answer that if you want.
And finally what it really comes down to is this...
You feel Apple knows best about what you can and can't do with your computing devices and the fact that you have no avenue to circumvent a bad decision Apple might make moving forward is perfectly acceptable.
You took me too literally. My intention when I said browser like technology was to convey the concept of what the browser once stood for. Today, the browser is a standard feature not a 'game-changing' application. I was simply using browser as a way to covey the concept of a groundbreaking new vision, a 'killer app++'. What will that next 'kill app++' be? Who knows but we'll certainly know it when we see it.
Ok, we were talking about different things.
Quote:
Okay we can agree to disagree on this point but Apple pulling the rug out from under GV was done for politically motivate reasons, thats how I see it anyway... AT&T made a statement to the FCC indicating they had no part in the decision to nuke GV and Apple said it hasn't even rejected the app in the first place... Is anyone actually buying into any of these answers?!?
Are you actually expecting me to believe that with a few UI changes GV will someday be approved? And what about the other Google app they had to give up on since it too was never going to be approved in native form and had to resort to a lesser web based version of the app that Apple had no control over? My current line of thinking is Google couldn't write a 'Hello World' native app and get it approved by Apple. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this but all the current signs seem to point in my direction.
So can we now conclude, with a certain level of confidence that Google has been effectively blackballed from the App Store? I'll let you answer that if you want.
And finally what it really comes down to is this...
You feel Apple knows best about what you can and can't do with your computing devices and the fact that you have no avenue to circumvent a bad decision Apple might make moving forward is perfectly acceptable.
While I don't.
I'm not saying it will be approved. I've said several times that Apple's contract with AT&T spells out a number of things that Apple can't do, or allow to be done by others regarding the customer agreements. I have no problem with that.
Because of those agreements, Apple can decide by themselves whether to accept an app, reject it, or have it modified.AT&T can properly state that Apple didn't approach them about the program, because Apple didn't have to.
Google has two apps in the store now, or at least one. They also provide the maps, though we don't know what the future will be with that now.
But don't you think that Google is pressing things with Apple and AT&T?
It seems to me that they are competing with Apple more and more, and are moving into Apple's turf, not the other way around.
I don't think Apple wants to see Google taking over control of some basic functions of the phone. I know that if I were Jobs, I'd be alarmed at what Google is doing.
But don't you think that Google is pressing things with Apple and AT&T? It seems to me that they are competing with Apple more and more, and are moving into Apple's turf, not the other way around.
And?!?!?
Does that mean Bill Gates should be able to block Apple from distributing their iTunes and Safari on Windows?
Does that mean Bill Gates should be able to block Apple from distributing their iTunes and Safari on Windows?
I think it means that if Apple has proscribed a few areas for itself, then thats fine, and I see no reason why Google should be pushing it. Let them do that with their own phone. It seems as though that's competition enough.
There's nothing that says that this needs to be a totally open system. Even the FCC isn't really sure about any of this. All they're concerned about is whether Apple and AT&T are doing something that's illegal over the network. Since every carrier has done this for years, and there doesn't seem to be any laws against it, it's not likely that there's one against this one either, assuming, of course, that what's said is happening is what is happening. This is something we don't know yet.
Well Dave, I am sure he would like to if he could... but there are laws against these things.
Maybe, maybe not. Whether there are laws against "these things" isn't something that we know for sure yet. There are laws against some of these things, but not all of these things.
With MS, they are a monopoly, so the laws proscribe them from doing certain things. The iPhone isn't a monopoly, so the same laws don't apply, just as they don't apply for the Mac.
Looking at the device using the first perspective its far easier to accept the intentional limiting of what you can and can't do with it.
Looking at the device from the second perspective makes the actions Apple is taking totally unacceptable. The thought of any company telling me they are blocking a willing and able 3rd party developers from providing software that I might want use simply because 'they can' is beyond contempt.
The funny thing is.. you even catch Apple going back and forth with what these new devices are.
1 - "Its RUNS OS X!" (its a hand held computer)
2 - "We reserve the right to limit and block software at our desecration" (its a CE device)
The iPod and iPhone have in my mind crossed over from being a really cool music player (or phone) to a an all-purpose general computing device.
Clearly others feel they still consider them on the CE Device side of the fence.
Maybe, maybe not. Whether there are laws against "these things" isn't something that we know for sure yet.
Really? Have the laws changes since the DOJ vs Microsoft.
I know that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market... and that Apple does not have a monopoly in the mobile OS market. It's our friend Dave who can't see the difference.
Really? Have the laws changes since the DOJ vs Microsoft.
I know that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market... and that Apple does not have a monopoly in the mobile OS market. It's our friend Dave who can't see the difference.
I don't know them all, and I don't think anyone else here does either.
Someone would perform a public service by listing and linking to all of them.
And then they can give us an authoritative breakdown of each, listing and explaining how each codicil and reference affects this situation.
I say that WE don't know all of this because none of us here are experts in this area. And even the experts can't predict what a court may decide. They may force a company to abide by the rules set down, or they may strike those rules.
Laws may be ruled to take precedence, or they may be ruled as unfair, or even unconstitutional.
We just don't know.
The FCC has been having difficulty enforcing many of its rules, because it hasn't been clear that they have even had the authority to make the rules in some categories. Congress has considered that some types of rules that are wide ranging, and affect public policy aren't allowable for an unelected body to stipulate.
Broadcast airwaves, wired telephone networks, wired cable networks, broadband and wireless cell networks are all considered to be different, and are run with different rules and regulations.
More than a few of these are unclear as how they may apply cross network.
For example, the "public" airwaves, the ones that analog Tv and radio stations have been using are subject to strict rules. But are the "private" airwaves that have been bought by companies subject to the same rules?
This is a big matter of contention.
Do the wireless carriers have to allow VOIP? Not clear!
Does Apple have to allow programs that hijack the direction they have lined up for their products? Not clear!
Can one company destroy another by doing such a thing? Not clear!
It's not that simple.
And while I understand that some consumers want to be able to do anything they want to any time they want to no matter what the consequences, it's not clear that they have the automatic right to do that.
I don't think, from what I've been reading about this matter, that the FCC itself knows what they can regulate here, or whether the rules even cover what's being done.
And even if they think they do, they may not have the authority to do what they think they can.
I don't know them all, and I don't think anyone else here does either.
Someone would perform a public service by listing and linking to all of them.
And then they can give us an authoritative breakdown of each, listing and explaining how each codicil and reference affects this situation.
I say that WE don't know all of this because none of us here are experts in this area. And even the experts can't predict what a court may decide. They may force a company to abide by the rules set down, or they may strike those rules.
Laws may be ruled to take precedence, or they may be ruled as unfair, or even unconstitutional.
We just don't know.
The FCC has been having difficulty enforcing many of its rules, because it hasn't been clear that they have even had the authority to make the rules in some categories. Congress has considered that some types of rules that are wide ranging, and affect public policy aren't allowable for an unelected body to stipulate.
Broadcast airwaves, wired telephone networks, wired cable networks, broadband and wireless cell networks are all considered to be different, and are run with different rules and regulations.
More than a few of these are unclear as how they may apply cross network.
For example, the "public" airwaves, the ones that analog Tv and radio stations have been using are subject to strict rules. But are the "private" airwaves that have been bought by companies subject to the same rules?
This is a big matter of contention.
Do the wireless carriers have to allow VOIP? Not clear!
Does Apple have to allow programs that hijack the direction they have lined up for their products? Not clear!
Can one company destroy another by doing such a thing? Not clear!
It's not that simple.
And while I understand that some consumers want to be able to do anything they want to any time they want to no matter what the consequences, it's not clear that they have the automatic right to do that.
I don't think, from what I've been reading about this matter, that the FCC itself knows what they can regulate here, or whether the rules even cover what's being done.
And even if they think they do, they may not have the authority to do what they think they can.
All very interesting. And yes, the law is complex. However I don't think "Bill Gates blocking iTunes on Windows" would occur without their being legal consequences.
All very interesting. And yes, the law is complex. However I don't think "Bill Gates blocking iTunes on Windows" would occur without their being legal consequences.
That's a totally different circumstance.
As has been stated many times, Windows is a legal monopoly. That makes what they do very different. Apple is not. The iPhone is not. iTunes is not. Very different. AT&T is not.
In addition, the personal computer industry has grown up in a different way. When personal computers first came out, there was no software, and no real way to get the very small amateur written programs that began to appear, into the machines.
Over the evolution of the industry, which started with very small, and numerous players, the concept of open software for these machines became accepted as normal. Trying to restrict that later, would have gone against what was already accepted practice, and couldn't be done.
But the phone industry is very different. From the very beginning, everything has been locked down. Even for smartphones, certain categories of software was not allowed. That was true for the most open systems, Win Mobile and Palmphones.
So now we are demanding things that have never been accepted as normal practice.
It's a different state of affairs, and it's still questionable as to whether the authorities have the legal muscle to do it.
Look at the big fight that's going on in the FCC and Congress about a neutral internet. You would think that that's normal, and what should always be. Not so!
In addition, look at all the people here who are actually against the regulating that would be required to insure a neutral internet. At MacDailyNews, the conservatives have come out strongly against regulating Comcast and the industry in general. A fair amount of filthy language and insults were required from them to drive their points home.
So with some not wanting ANY regulation, where does that leave us?
New technology has allowed the ISP's to do things they couldn't do before, and so they see that as an advantage to themselves by doing it.
We may need new laws to determine how open things will be required to be.
So this is why I say that Apple and AT&T, along with all the other carriers and phone makers may not be doing anything illegal, or at least, against any rules set down by the commission. And there will be those opposed to set any rules or laws.
Melgross, it could be me (it often is!) but one of us is confused. I am not sure why you are responding to my (short) posts... with your (long) posts. ?
In a simple response to DaveGee's question: "Does that mean Bill Gates should be able to block Apple from distributing their iTunes and Safari on Windows?" I wrote:
Well Dave, I am sure he would like to if he could... but there are laws against these things.
Quote:
As has been stated many times, Windows is a legal monopoly. That makes what they do very different. Apple is not. The iPhone is not. iTunes is not. Very different. AT&T is not.
Yes and I also wrote: "I know that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market... and that Apple does not have a monopoly in the mobile OS market"
If you don't explain or issue an immediate apology I shall be forced to report your conduct to the USB Implementers Forum.
Comments
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 took me too literally. My intention when I said browser like technology was to convey the concept of what the browser once stood for. Today, the browser is a standard feature not a 'game-changing' application. I was simply using browser as a way to covey the concept of a groundbreaking new vision, a 'killer app++'. What will that next 'kill app++' be? Who knows but we'll certainly know it when we see it.
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.
Okay we can agree to disagree on this point but Apple pulling the rug out from under GV was done for politically motivate reasons, thats how I see it anyway... AT&T made a statement to the FCC indicating they had no part in the decision to nuke GV and Apple said it hasn't even rejected the app in the first place... Is anyone actually buying into any of these answers?!?
Are you actually expecting me to believe that with a few UI changes GV will someday be approved? And what about the other Google app they had to give up on since it too was never going to be approved in native form and had to resort to a lesser web based version of the app that Apple had no control over? My current line of thinking is Google couldn't write a 'Hello World' native app and get it approved by Apple. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this but all the current signs seem to point in my direction.
So can we now conclude, with a certain level of confidence that Google has been effectively blackballed from the App Store? I'll let you answer that if you want.
And finally what it really comes down to is this...
You feel Apple knows best about what you can and can't do with your computing devices and the fact that you have no avenue to circumvent a bad decision Apple might make moving forward is perfectly acceptable.
While I don't.
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.
How about the silly use of colors in ones signatures? Does that count when considering content?
DAVE
How about the silly use of colors in ones signatures? Does that count when considering content?
DAVE
*jazzguru prepares a bowl of popcorn and puts on 3D glasses in eager anticipation of the reply*
You took me too literally. My intention when I said browser like technology was to convey the concept of what the browser once stood for. Today, the browser is a standard feature not a 'game-changing' application. I was simply using browser as a way to covey the concept of a groundbreaking new vision, a 'killer app++'. What will that next 'kill app++' be? Who knows but we'll certainly know it when we see it.
Ok, we were talking about different things.
Okay we can agree to disagree on this point but Apple pulling the rug out from under GV was done for politically motivate reasons, thats how I see it anyway... AT&T made a statement to the FCC indicating they had no part in the decision to nuke GV and Apple said it hasn't even rejected the app in the first place... Is anyone actually buying into any of these answers?!?
Are you actually expecting me to believe that with a few UI changes GV will someday be approved? And what about the other Google app they had to give up on since it too was never going to be approved in native form and had to resort to a lesser web based version of the app that Apple had no control over? My current line of thinking is Google couldn't write a 'Hello World' native app and get it approved by Apple. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this but all the current signs seem to point in my direction.
So can we now conclude, with a certain level of confidence that Google has been effectively blackballed from the App Store? I'll let you answer that if you want.
And finally what it really comes down to is this...
You feel Apple knows best about what you can and can't do with your computing devices and the fact that you have no avenue to circumvent a bad decision Apple might make moving forward is perfectly acceptable.
While I don't.
I'm not saying it will be approved. I've said several times that Apple's contract with AT&T spells out a number of things that Apple can't do, or allow to be done by others regarding the customer agreements. I have no problem with that.
Because of those agreements, Apple can decide by themselves whether to accept an app, reject it, or have it modified.AT&T can properly state that Apple didn't approach them about the program, because Apple didn't have to.
Google has two apps in the store now, or at least one. They also provide the maps, though we don't know what the future will be with that now.
But don't you think that Google is pressing things with Apple and AT&T?
It seems to me that they are competing with Apple more and more, and are moving into Apple's turf, not the other way around.
I don't think Apple wants to see Google taking over control of some basic functions of the phone. I know that if I were Jobs, I'd be alarmed at what Google is doing.
But don't you think that Google is pressing things with Apple and AT&T? It seems to me that they are competing with Apple more and more, and are moving into Apple's turf, not the other way around.
And?!?!?
Does that mean Bill Gates should be able to block Apple from distributing their iTunes and Safari on Windows?
And?!?!?
Does that mean Bill Gates should be able to block Apple from distributing their iTunes and Safari on Windows?
Well Dave, I am sure he would like to if he could... but there are laws against these things.
And?!?!?
Does that mean Bill Gates should be able to block Apple from distributing their iTunes and Safari on Windows?
I think it means that if Apple has proscribed a few areas for itself, then thats fine, and I see no reason why Google should be pushing it. Let them do that with their own phone. It seems as though that's competition enough.
There's nothing that says that this needs to be a totally open system. Even the FCC isn't really sure about any of this. All they're concerned about is whether Apple and AT&T are doing something that's illegal over the network. Since every carrier has done this for years, and there doesn't seem to be any laws against it, it's not likely that there's one against this one either, assuming, of course, that what's said is happening is what is happening. This is something we don't know yet.
Well Dave, I am sure he would like to if he could... but there are laws against these things.
Maybe, maybe not. Whether there are laws against "these things" isn't something that we know for sure yet. There are laws against some of these things, but not all of these things.
With MS, they are a monopoly, so the laws proscribe them from doing certain things. The iPhone isn't a monopoly, so the same laws don't apply, just as they don't apply for the Mac.
But... there are clearly two different lights you can view these new devices under.
#1 A consumer electronic device that happens to have a very broad selection of software offerings.
#2 A computer in you're hand
Looking at the device using the first perspective its far easier to accept the intentional limiting of what you can and can't do with it.
Looking at the device from the second perspective makes the actions Apple is taking totally unacceptable. The thought of any company telling me they are blocking a willing and able 3rd party developers from providing software that I might want use simply because 'they can' is beyond contempt.
The funny thing is.. you even catch Apple going back and forth with what these new devices are.
1 - "Its RUNS OS X!" (its a hand held computer)
2 - "We reserve the right to limit and block software at our desecration" (its a CE device)
The iPod and iPhone have in my mind crossed over from being a really cool music player (or phone) to a an all-purpose general computing device.
Clearly others feel they still consider them on the CE Device side of the fence.
Maybe, maybe not. Whether there are laws against "these things" isn't something that we know for sure yet.
Really? Have the laws changes since the DOJ vs Microsoft.
I know that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market... and that Apple does not have a monopoly in the mobile OS market. It's our friend Dave who can't see the difference.
How about the silly use of colors in ones signatures? Does that count when considering content?
DAVE
My.. what do you mean?
Really? Have the laws changes since the DOJ vs Microsoft.
I know that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market... and that Apple does not have a monopoly in the mobile OS market. It's our friend Dave who can't see the difference.
I don't know them all, and I don't think anyone else here does either.
Someone would perform a public service by listing and linking to all of them.
And then they can give us an authoritative breakdown of each, listing and explaining how each codicil and reference affects this situation.
I say that WE don't know all of this because none of us here are experts in this area. And even the experts can't predict what a court may decide. They may force a company to abide by the rules set down, or they may strike those rules.
Laws may be ruled to take precedence, or they may be ruled as unfair, or even unconstitutional.
We just don't know.
The FCC has been having difficulty enforcing many of its rules, because it hasn't been clear that they have even had the authority to make the rules in some categories. Congress has considered that some types of rules that are wide ranging, and affect public policy aren't allowable for an unelected body to stipulate.
Broadcast airwaves, wired telephone networks, wired cable networks, broadband and wireless cell networks are all considered to be different, and are run with different rules and regulations.
More than a few of these are unclear as how they may apply cross network.
For example, the "public" airwaves, the ones that analog Tv and radio stations have been using are subject to strict rules. But are the "private" airwaves that have been bought by companies subject to the same rules?
This is a big matter of contention.
Do the wireless carriers have to allow VOIP? Not clear!
Does Apple have to allow programs that hijack the direction they have lined up for their products? Not clear!
Can one company destroy another by doing such a thing? Not clear!
It's not that simple.
And while I understand that some consumers want to be able to do anything they want to any time they want to no matter what the consequences, it's not clear that they have the automatic right to do that.
I don't think, from what I've been reading about this matter, that the FCC itself knows what they can regulate here, or whether the rules even cover what's being done.
And even if they think they do, they may not have the authority to do what they think they can.
I don't know them all, and I don't think anyone else here does either.
Someone would perform a public service by listing and linking to all of them.
And then they can give us an authoritative breakdown of each, listing and explaining how each codicil and reference affects this situation.
I say that WE don't know all of this because none of us here are experts in this area. And even the experts can't predict what a court may decide. They may force a company to abide by the rules set down, or they may strike those rules.
Laws may be ruled to take precedence, or they may be ruled as unfair, or even unconstitutional.
We just don't know.
The FCC has been having difficulty enforcing many of its rules, because it hasn't been clear that they have even had the authority to make the rules in some categories. Congress has considered that some types of rules that are wide ranging, and affect public policy aren't allowable for an unelected body to stipulate.
Broadcast airwaves, wired telephone networks, wired cable networks, broadband and wireless cell networks are all considered to be different, and are run with different rules and regulations.
More than a few of these are unclear as how they may apply cross network.
For example, the "public" airwaves, the ones that analog Tv and radio stations have been using are subject to strict rules. But are the "private" airwaves that have been bought by companies subject to the same rules?
This is a big matter of contention.
Do the wireless carriers have to allow VOIP? Not clear!
Does Apple have to allow programs that hijack the direction they have lined up for their products? Not clear!
Can one company destroy another by doing such a thing? Not clear!
It's not that simple.
And while I understand that some consumers want to be able to do anything they want to any time they want to no matter what the consequences, it's not clear that they have the automatic right to do that.
I don't think, from what I've been reading about this matter, that the FCC itself knows what they can regulate here, or whether the rules even cover what's being done.
And even if they think they do, they may not have the authority to do what they think they can.
All very interesting. And yes, the law is complex. However I don't think "Bill Gates blocking iTunes on Windows" would occur without their being legal consequences.
All very interesting. And yes, the law is complex. However I don't think "Bill Gates blocking iTunes on Windows" would occur without their being legal consequences.
That's a totally different circumstance.
As has been stated many times, Windows is a legal monopoly. That makes what they do very different. Apple is not. The iPhone is not. iTunes is not. Very different. AT&T is not.
In addition, the personal computer industry has grown up in a different way. When personal computers first came out, there was no software, and no real way to get the very small amateur written programs that began to appear, into the machines.
Over the evolution of the industry, which started with very small, and numerous players, the concept of open software for these machines became accepted as normal. Trying to restrict that later, would have gone against what was already accepted practice, and couldn't be done.
But the phone industry is very different. From the very beginning, everything has been locked down. Even for smartphones, certain categories of software was not allowed. That was true for the most open systems, Win Mobile and Palmphones.
So now we are demanding things that have never been accepted as normal practice.
It's a different state of affairs, and it's still questionable as to whether the authorities have the legal muscle to do it.
Look at the big fight that's going on in the FCC and Congress about a neutral internet. You would think that that's normal, and what should always be. Not so!
In addition, look at all the people here who are actually against the regulating that would be required to insure a neutral internet. At MacDailyNews, the conservatives have come out strongly against regulating Comcast and the industry in general. A fair amount of filthy language and insults were required from them to drive their points home.
So with some not wanting ANY regulation, where does that leave us?
New technology has allowed the ISP's to do things they couldn't do before, and so they see that as an advantage to themselves by doing it.
We may need new laws to determine how open things will be required to be.
So this is why I say that Apple and AT&T, along with all the other carriers and phone makers may not be doing anything illegal, or at least, against any rules set down by the commission. And there will be those opposed to set any rules or laws.
That's a totally different circumstance.
Melgross, it could be me (it often is!) but one of us is confused. I am not sure why you are responding to my (short) posts... with your (long) posts. ?
In a simple response to DaveGee's question: "Does that mean Bill Gates should be able to block Apple from distributing their iTunes and Safari on Windows?" I wrote:
Well Dave, I am sure he would like to if he could... but there are laws against these things.
As has been stated many times, Windows is a legal monopoly. That makes what they do very different. Apple is not. The iPhone is not. iTunes is not. Very different. AT&T is not.
Yes and I also wrote: "I know that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market... and that Apple does not have a monopoly in the mobile OS market"
If you don't explain or issue an immediate apology I shall be forced to report your conduct to the USB Implementers Forum.