If I were to become an apologist for a multinational corporation, would that make me as much of a big guy as they are?
Did you notice that Steve made exactly the right choice of attire at the Oscars? I would have picked EXACTLY the same tuxedo. He does everything in the best possible manner!
This had to be done, because every bozo with a business now wants an iPhone app the same way they all wanted a website.
Just look on Elance.com - so many of the requests for programmers are to just take some restaurant owner's website and make it into an iPhone app.
Nobody's going to download that stuff. Can you imagine browsing the freeware section of MacUpdate and seeing thousands of "apps" that were just the websites of thousands of businesses?
Apps that show you ALL of the restaurants in a geographic area, with distances and reviews and automatic dialing of the phone number for reservations, etc. are real apps. Those that just show you the menu of one restaurant are useless, and a waste of the owner's money.
These businesses think they need this. They don't. Nobody's going to download an app that is just an ad for one business.
Who told us that AT&T network is busy? It seems that Apple is going to increase data consumption. For example, there is a simple weather application that gets small piece of XML feed, parses it, and displays weather information for a few cities on the single screen.
How many data I need to download to get all this information by myself? Much more! Even web-application optimized for iPhone will require to download more data against the specialized application.
And you know pals, you can add paid services to your web application and you don't need to share apy part of your revenue with Apple. Isn't smart move for Apple
These businesses think they need this. They don't. Nobody's going to download an app that is just an ad for one business.
You are not right. Last week I downloaded "iVisit Sonoma County" app into my iPod Touch and I found that it's very useful. Yes, you can find this information online but... in my case (iPod Touch) if you have Wi-Fi spot nearby only.
The basic problem is that you can buy apps ONLY at the app store. This was the decision that was stupidly wrong.
Every other decision was made necessary because of this first boneheaded decision. It wasn't thought through that it would put Apple in the role of censor. It wasn't thought through that developers would send technically acceptable, but crappy apps.
Or it was thought through, which would be even worse.
Apple is becoming their own worst enemy. They are making themselves into a punchline.
I can see at least one bonehead in your statement but I don't think it's Apple. While no-one (not even Apple) has clairvoyance, they always knew that they would control this platform just like they try to control every other content channel into their products (Music, podcasts, Video, Books, etc.). Not that they can control everything but only geeks will bother to work around most limitations. Apple wants to be the censor, the controller, the owner - it is their business strategy. Nothing boneheaded about it. Apple knows that it will do better with this model than in a free for all where the platform becomes just a commoditized device like all PCs are. They want a premium platform and experience that supports high margins, not a blind grab for market share. What you or I think is right is as irrelevant to the model's success as your opinion is.
The execution has been less than perfect but understandable. Create a walled garden, make it as easy as possible to grow to critical mass and clamp down when the "store size war" is won. Easier to suffer the slings of the irrelevant geek crowd like you than "public interest" pieces on every 5pm local news and newspaper about how the App Store is a front for porn and scams. That would be the punchline they are looking to avoid, not a bunch of nerds complaining in blogs and boards.
You spout terms like "stupid" and "boneheaded" without any reference to why something was done and what the benefits are to the people that made the decision (in this case Apple). That only puts you in that category. You also need to stop conflating people who disagree with you and agree with Apple as "apologists" as though it makes them pathetic collaborators in some kind of fascistic plot. Have you ever thought that your incessant need to pipe up as though you are some kind of nerd Luke Skywalker is not way sadder?
I'm glad Apple is doing this. I've complained on here often that simply repurposing web content isn't the same thing as an app. Quality over quantity and this is a step in the right direction.
If I were to become an apologist for a multinational corporation, would that make me as much of a big guy as they are?
No-one is talking about being an apologist for one thing or another. One day its a big media company another day its Psystar. To claim in general terms that Apple shits on the little guy is stupid and you know it.
Quote:
Did you notice that Steve made exactly the right choice of attire at the Oscars? I would have picked EXACTLY the same tuxedo. He does everything in the best possible manner!
I believe that so far nobody has found the weather app on the iPad, running 3.2, so maybe they are up to something.
However I agree with you on the second point.
I hadn't noticed that, but if they axe that app, then it's going to make things slower. On my 3G using WiFi, "Weather" got finished fetching information in 5 seconds from launch, and supports multiple locations right away. It took roughly 15-20 seconds to get equivalent information for my ZIP code in Accuweather.com, and another 5-10 seconds to look up another location. So while one _can_ just use a webapp or web page for the same thing, that doesn't mean it's necessarily the quickest or easiest way to get useful information. I guess it's just a matter of where the line is drawn, and it's hard to draw that line anyway.
I hear 140,000 apps in the app store and I think that's a pretty big haystack to search for the few needles that I might find useful. No, I suspect 140,000 apps is not as big an attraction as some people might think.
Paring back that haystack is a good thing. Apple also needs to put in a dormant app time limit. After a set period of time, if an app has sales below some threshold, it should be kicked of the app store shelf.
Is there even a mobile version of Apple.com? I don't think so. It would be much appreciated if they'd let someone like Amazon, who did the work to create their own Amazon and Kindle apps, to make a simple Apple Store app. Could it be that difficult for the guys who created the market for the modern mobile app (Apple) to do this?
Apple also needs to put in a dormant app time limit. After a set period of time, if an app has sales below some threshold, it should be kicked of the app store shelf.
No, that's not a good criteria for anything. Imagine someone writes a really elegant app for analyzing presidential elections, or solar eclipse viewing locations, or any other function that only occurs once in a long period of time. Should they be removed, regardless of UI quality and suitability to the task, simply because they don't get used as often as a solitaire game?
The goal isn't to simply purge the App Store for the sake of it; it should be to separate the wheat from the chaff based on quality and the need to exist as an iPhone app as opposed to a more generalized alternative.
If these apps go through an approval process and are approved while later on to have Apple decide to remove it for it's own personal reasons, I feel is wrong.
This doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons. The business environment is an ever-changing landscape. As the landscape changes, so often must a business adapt to that landscape. Do not forget that first and foremost Apple is a business, a business intent of surviving in the business world. That REQUIRES the ability to adapt.
Hand in hand with goes a universal rule of knowledge; when you learn something new, it may affect the way you do things. If you have learned something new, and you found that it impacts something that you do, you do not continue do it the same way just because you did that way before you learned that new something.
The simplest example I can give is that of the stove burner. You might want to touch it the first time, and maybe when it was cool you were okay. But once it burns you hand, it may well be stupid to touch it again just because you were able to touch it before.
Apples business decisions are likely due to considerations of the changing landscape.
The basic problem is that you can buy apps ONLY at the app store. This was the decision that was stupidly wrong.
Every other decision was made necessary because of this first boneheaded decision. It wasn't thought through that it would put Apple in the role of censor. It wasn't thought through that developers would send technically acceptable, but crappy apps.
Or it was thought through, which would be even worse.
Apple is becoming their own worst enemy. They are making themselves into a punchline.
I guess Simply Beach is going to be pulled once again, since their app is nothing more than a reduced version of their website. I said at the time that companies like them don't need apps when they already have websites and the apps don't do anything additional. The response was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Are you as out of your mind as Phil Schiller? Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to make money off an app like everyone else?
This isn't even a question! It's Apple being absolutely inappropriately draconian and ridiculous!
Playboy is OK, by Schiller's words, because it's an established brand. That is the LARGEST chunk of horse **** EVER to come out of that man's mouth in a public fashion. As an investor, I'm seriously considering this man's sanity.
Looks like pmz will be going through PMS again and going ballistic about Apple's "draconian" policies.
Is there even a mobile version of Apple.com? I don't think so. It would be much appreciated if they'd let someone like Amazon, who did the work to create their own Amazon and Kindle apps, to make a simple Apple Store app. Could it be that difficult for the guys who created the market for the modern mobile app (Apple) to do this?
I wouldn't be surprised if they don't make a mobile version of apple.com as a means to show off the full browser capability of the iphone. why make a mobile version that other phones could use when your phone doesn't even need a mobile version?
Comments
The basic problem is that you can buy apps ONLY at the app store. This was the decision that was stupidly wrong.
What part of web app do you not understand? They can be distributed outside the App Store.
Stupidly wrong indeed.
And you must clearly feel like a very little guy.
If I were to become an apologist for a multinational corporation, would that make me as much of a big guy as they are?
Did you notice that Steve made exactly the right choice of attire at the Oscars? I would have picked EXACTLY the same tuxedo. He does everything in the best possible manner!
Just look on Elance.com - so many of the requests for programmers are to just take some restaurant owner's website and make it into an iPhone app.
Nobody's going to download that stuff. Can you imagine browsing the freeware section of MacUpdate and seeing thousands of "apps" that were just the websites of thousands of businesses?
Apps that show you ALL of the restaurants in a geographic area, with distances and reviews and automatic dialing of the phone number for reservations, etc. are real apps. Those that just show you the menu of one restaurant are useless, and a waste of the owner's money.
These businesses think they need this. They don't. Nobody's going to download an app that is just an ad for one business.
How many data I need to download to get all this information by myself? Much more! Even web-application optimized for iPhone will require to download more data against the specialized application.
And you know pals, you can add paid services to your web application and you don't need to share apy part of your revenue with Apple. Isn't smart move for Apple
These businesses think they need this. They don't. Nobody's going to download an app that is just an ad for one business.
You are not right. Last week I downloaded "iVisit Sonoma County" app into my iPod Touch and I found that it's very useful. Yes, you can find this information online but... in my case (iPod Touch) if you have Wi-Fi spot nearby only.
The basic problem is that you can buy apps ONLY at the app store. This was the decision that was stupidly wrong.
Every other decision was made necessary because of this first boneheaded decision. It wasn't thought through that it would put Apple in the role of censor. It wasn't thought through that developers would send technically acceptable, but crappy apps.
Or it was thought through, which would be even worse.
Apple is becoming their own worst enemy. They are making themselves into a punchline.
I can see at least one bonehead in your statement but I don't think it's Apple. While no-one (not even Apple) has clairvoyance, they always knew that they would control this platform just like they try to control every other content channel into their products (Music, podcasts, Video, Books, etc.). Not that they can control everything but only geeks will bother to work around most limitations. Apple wants to be the censor, the controller, the owner - it is their business strategy. Nothing boneheaded about it. Apple knows that it will do better with this model than in a free for all where the platform becomes just a commoditized device like all PCs are. They want a premium platform and experience that supports high margins, not a blind grab for market share. What you or I think is right is as irrelevant to the model's success as your opinion is.
The execution has been less than perfect but understandable. Create a walled garden, make it as easy as possible to grow to critical mass and clamp down when the "store size war" is won. Easier to suffer the slings of the irrelevant geek crowd like you than "public interest" pieces on every 5pm local news and newspaper about how the App Store is a front for porn and scams. That would be the punchline they are looking to avoid, not a bunch of nerds complaining in blogs and boards.
You spout terms like "stupid" and "boneheaded" without any reference to why something was done and what the benefits are to the people that made the decision (in this case Apple). That only puts you in that category. You also need to stop conflating people who disagree with you and agree with Apple as "apologists" as though it makes them pathetic collaborators in some kind of fascistic plot. Have you ever thought that your incessant need to pipe up as though you are some kind of nerd Luke Skywalker is not way sadder?
If I were to become an apologist for a multinational corporation, would that make me as much of a big guy as they are?
No-one is talking about being an apologist for one thing or another. One day its a big media company another day its Psystar. To claim in general terms that Apple shits on the little guy is stupid and you know it.
Did you notice that Steve made exactly the right choice of attire at the Oscars? I would have picked EXACTLY the same tuxedo. He does everything in the best possible manner!
You are just awesome, man.
I believe that so far nobody has found the weather app on the iPad, running 3.2, so maybe they are up to something.
However I agree with you on the second point.
I hadn't noticed that, but if they axe that app, then it's going to make things slower. On my 3G using WiFi, "Weather" got finished fetching information in 5 seconds from launch, and supports multiple locations right away. It took roughly 15-20 seconds to get equivalent information for my ZIP code in Accuweather.com, and another 5-10 seconds to look up another location. So while one _can_ just use a webapp or web page for the same thing, that doesn't mean it's necessarily the quickest or easiest way to get useful information. I guess it's just a matter of where the line is drawn, and it's hard to draw that line anyway.
Paring back that haystack is a good thing. Apple also needs to put in a dormant app time limit. After a set period of time, if an app has sales below some threshold, it should be kicked of the app store shelf.
Apple's web app site has a decidedly iPhone-unfriendly browsing format!
Is there even a mobile version of Apple.com? I don't think so. It would be much appreciated if they'd let someone like Amazon, who did the work to create their own Amazon and Kindle apps, to make a simple Apple Store app. Could it be that difficult for the guys who created the market for the modern mobile app (Apple) to do this?
Maybe now Redbox will go back and do a real app, one that doesn't resemble elephant dung.
Looking forward to a Netflix app instead...
Apple also needs to put in a dormant app time limit. After a set period of time, if an app has sales below some threshold, it should be kicked of the app store shelf.
No, that's not a good criteria for anything. Imagine someone writes a really elegant app for analyzing presidential elections, or solar eclipse viewing locations, or any other function that only occurs once in a long period of time. Should they be removed, regardless of UI quality and suitability to the task, simply because they don't get used as often as a solitaire game?
The goal isn't to simply purge the App Store for the sake of it; it should be to separate the wheat from the chaff based on quality and the need to exist as an iPhone app as opposed to a more generalized alternative.
If these apps go through an approval process and are approved while later on to have Apple decide to remove it for it's own personal reasons, I feel is wrong.
This doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons. The business environment is an ever-changing landscape. As the landscape changes, so often must a business adapt to that landscape. Do not forget that first and foremost Apple is a business, a business intent of surviving in the business world. That REQUIRES the ability to adapt.
Hand in hand with goes a universal rule of knowledge; when you learn something new, it may affect the way you do things. If you have learned something new, and you found that it impacts something that you do, you do not continue do it the same way just because you did that way before you learned that new something.
The simplest example I can give is that of the stove burner. You might want to touch it the first time, and maybe when it was cool you were okay. But once it burns you hand, it may well be stupid to touch it again just because you were able to touch it before.
Apples business decisions are likely due to considerations of the changing landscape.
Didn't you read the article?
The basic problem is that you can buy apps ONLY at the app store. This was the decision that was stupidly wrong.
Every other decision was made necessary because of this first boneheaded decision. It wasn't thought through that it would put Apple in the role of censor. It wasn't thought through that developers would send technically acceptable, but crappy apps.
Or it was thought through, which would be even worse.
Apple is becoming their own worst enemy. They are making themselves into a punchline.
Are you as out of your mind as Phil Schiller? Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to make money off an app like everyone else?
This isn't even a question! It's Apple being absolutely inappropriately draconian and ridiculous!
Playboy is OK, by Schiller's words, because it's an established brand. That is the LARGEST chunk of horse **** EVER to come out of that man's mouth in a public fashion. As an investor, I'm seriously considering this man's sanity.
Looks like pmz will be going through PMS again and going ballistic about Apple's "draconian" policies.
The quack like a duck app was not pulled from the app store; it was never approved, according to the previous AI story on the subject.
Is there even a mobile version of Apple.com? I don't think so. It would be much appreciated if they'd let someone like Amazon, who did the work to create their own Amazon and Kindle apps, to make a simple Apple Store app. Could it be that difficult for the guys who created the market for the modern mobile app (Apple) to do this?
I wouldn't be surprised if they don't make a mobile version of apple.com as a means to show off the full browser capability of the iphone. why make a mobile version that other phones could use when your phone doesn't even need a mobile version?
granted. mobile versions are still nice.