Burning bridges is also a great career move. I challenge you to call all your former employers and tell them they suck and you don't need their stinking references anymore.
Tell me how that works out for ya.
None of my previous employers will give references. At best they will state the period I worked for them. So your challenge is, well, pointless.
In practical terms who has actually returned to a previous employer? I know a couple myself but they would certainly number in a clear minority. There's a reason you left them in the first place, right?
I wanted to buy the iPad before Apple even announced it. I have an iPhone, my wife an iTouch and I wanted the iPad eg for reading newspapers. I have to say I don't like Apple's move of censorship and the press is becoming cautious here. Apple cannot dictate the newspapers what they are allowed to publish. At the moment the problem are only pictures of women with not much clothes on. It doesn't matter whether one likes those pictures or not. But it must be the buyer who decides what he wants to seeand read, not Apple. I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
Apple's behaviour seems clear to me. They do not wish to be seen as the seller of "objectionable" material, but at the same time do not stop you from manually visiting another vendor who may sell such material.
Where it is clear that the content is coming from an external publisher and not Apple they place no limits on what you can view.
So I expect the iBooks application will only access an "approved" library of books because people will see it as Apple's book store.
No such limit is placed on third party book store apps because it's obvious the stores they represent are those of a third party.
You can use the Amazon app and Safari to buy anything Amazon sells.
My vote for his replacement is Johnathan Schwartz. Apple needs to get into the enterprise. They had the chance to buy Sun, but missed the opportunity, Sun would have been worth it just for Solaris and IP. Hopefully if Schwartz moves in he can guide them into the enterprise and lure Sun Engineers to Apple.
The marketing can be handled by Apple's vast talent pool and other exec's along with new ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella
He is in a lot of Google videos, is fairly well spoken and easy on the eyes. Could he be the new spokesface of Apple?
Tim Cook is a shoe-in for CEO but a dynamic public speaker he is NOT.
Phil Schiller is a marketing guy and it comes across in his presentation.
I think you're confused here. Apple is not censoring content for the consumer - you can still get every web page from every pornographic site on the planet on your iPhone. Any developer can still make a web app to do anything, and the iPhone will run it.
All Apple has done is restrict what content Apple itself offers in its store. Developers are complaining because they can't piggyback on Apple's popularity to sell anything they want on iTunes.
I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldfullerton
Does it not concern you that the press often publishes lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and pornographic images, all under the banner of 'free speech'? Do you not understand that some companies would not like to have their products associated with this type of cheap, amoral, opportunistic media?
The Wall Street Journal recently launched WSJ. magazine, a very highly-polished magazine with a look-and-feel that screams "iPad".
For those who have access to the March 2010 issue, on page 28 there is a picture of a completely nude woman hovering over a bed. Granted it's in an ad, but the ad had to be approved by someone.
It'll be very, very interesting to see what Apple does when WSJ. lands in the App Store. What happens when "unsuitable" content gets through the garden walls?
Burning bridges is also a great career move. I challenge you to call all your former employers and tell them they suck and you don't need their stinking references anymore.
Thanks, though, I would say that in fairness to Google, one of the first Verizon phones using Android has Bing as the default search engine, which speaks to the degree of heavy-handedness Google is NOT employing.
QUOTE: Imagine Apple allowing an iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad to ship with doubleTwist as the default media library management app vs. iTunes. Never, right?
No Verizon Android phones have BING on them. You may be thinking of updates recently with Windows or Blackberry, (you can remove these too). Android on Verizon is Android.
Maybe your confusing the motorola black flip with At&t that has YAHOO as the search engine, not open access or third party software allowed. BING may be closer to your next iphone then you can imagine.
Double twist for free bless them, syncs my former blackberry to my Mac & for many users that want to use their preferred computing device to their preferred choice of device. Many, including some apple employees in cupertino i know would love the iphone on not a second rate carrier in the untied states but until then.....
I would love to see Apple, which did inspire me in it's former years to take on some of these practices such as a open access platform,(there is always hacking, remember they didn't like apps at first) working with others devices in using their computers, & selling that phone with a multiple of telecoms.....Kinda why Android's doing well.
@theobold, My bad. I confused both carrier and search engine. It was AT&T and the phone is Motorola Backflip with Yahoo as search engine, as you rightly note. I think the point remains about Google facilitating CHOICE, which is consistent with their loose coupling model.
......This sounds like a cover for an open-source type ideology. He's not concerned about consumer freedom, he's concerned about developer freedom. Those aren't exactly the same things.
+1
You nailed it.
No, you don't. Can you tell me what bonus to the consumer is the omission of the applications such as Google Voice from the AppStore ? Consumers have less choice. Hope people will recognize that and vote with their valet before its too late. Freedom is a precious thing.
...Apple needs to get into the enterprise. They had the chance to buy Sun, but missed the opportunity, Sun would have been worth it just for Solaris and IP. Hopefully if Schwartz moves in he can guide them into the enterprise and lure Sun Engineers to Apple.
Not going to happen. If Schwartz ever cross Apple's doorstep, the same day Jobs suffer the heart attack. Schwartz is Anti-Jobs.
The prospect of MS's two deadliest competitors declaring open war on each-other is nothing short of a miracle for Redmond.
Even _I_ would be monkey dancing if I were in Ballmer's shoes.
The customer will be a winner... for a while. Like any war, you don't want to be on the side that ultimately loses.
You are so right. How sad.
What sucks in all this saga is that Apple + Google could have been a KILLER partnership in shaping the new mobile internet world against an old and common foe in Microsoft.
I can really understand Steve Jobs' disappointment and sense of betrayal and disgust with the way Google entered the phone business (see excellent article in NYT).
Google did it in a way that most definitely compromises their relationship with Apple by indirectly offering patented features like multitouch through partner channels and worst, a hardware + software design closely resembling the iPhone (can you honestly say that the nexus one/google phone does not resemble the iPhone?).
Google could have done things quite differently in deploying its mobile strategy and taken its fair share of the pie by keeping its alliance with Apple strong. It had to be greedy. So instead, it screwed Apple in the very same way that Microsoft screwed Apple back in the old days. Copy and paste. Maybe that is why Jobs is taking this so personally. He expected more from the young folks at Google and hoped that they would live up to their own mantra. Kumbaya. Google could have been a first class citizen on the iPhone by offering great services and maintaining their search supremacy on mobiles. Apple was never interested in the search business.
What happens now? I predict the beginning of Microsoft's return to glory if it plays its cards right. Have you seen project natal? Bing? Windows mobile? Windows 7? Zune HD? Photosynth? Seadragon? They're pretty darn cool and promising. Bing search results aren't that far from Google's result if you give it a go. Say whatever you want but the folks at Redmond are poised for a comeback. They have a boatload of smart people and cash.
Hopefully, the ruling comes out that HTC is infringing on some of Apple's patents and their partners abandon multitouch on Android altogether (very unlikely) leaving Google with a lesson in modesty and perhaps a chance to refocus on its core competencies.
Perhaps this will preserve one of the last truly great American technology company. If not, well you folks in America might as well bid farewell to another American icon as HTC and other Taiwanese/Chinese/Korean/Finnish commodity phone makers pump out iPhone clones with no fear of retaliation and respect of IP. All this thanks in good part to "open" software from Google!
I appreciate Apple looking out for us on the explicit content. In some cases they may go a bit far. I'd rather be on a system where someone is watching out for the cosumer and not on one where malware can run rampant.
I'm sure at some point Apple will have a section and rate the apps on their content as groups of consumers will demand it. Either that or jailbreaking will just be the norm.
Your not making much sense here. Also you don't know much about feminism if you think "feminists" equate with the religious right in terms of the appeal of censorship, but I guess that shows what kind of person you are.
The point about this recent censorship is that the app store already has controls for adult content etc. There is no logical/rational reason for then saying on top of that, that such mild things as girls in underwear or bikinis are also completely banned. Add to that, the fact that the ban is not universal anyway and targeted only at developers that don't pay as much money to Apple as those that are allowed to display this stuff and it just makes no sense at all.
Lastly, Steve Jobs, like a lot of people has taken LSD. Your assertion that he "repeatedly talks about how great (it is)" is just bunk.
So I just have to ask -- what "kind of person" do you think I am, oh holy judger of judges? I can't wait to hear this.
It's not just flash Apple doesn't support. There's also no way to play Silverlight content, or WMV content. WMV is used extensively on sites such as IGN and GameTrailers for example.
Mobile Safari also lacks support for any plugins, so no Stumble, Adblock, XMarks, or any of the popular extentions out there.
Some sites are also blocked, it's rare admitedly, but here in the UK the BBC's hugely popular iPlayer site is blocked in Mobile Safari unless the iPhone is using wi-fi.
I believe it's also disingenuous to pretend that Apple's very strict censorship of the app store does not equal internet censorship. The lack of flash/silverlight in Safari means the app store is the only way to achieve things which would otherwise be possible through a browser.
I hope that the success of Android, and presumably Windows Phone (the demos at Mix looked great btw) will force Apple to move to an open, uncensored model. I thought walled gardens went out of fashion with AOL, but sadly it seems not.
Ah.... there you are, back again, complaining about Apple and talking up Android..... so what else is new!? Surely, you do have something - anything - different to say? Aren't you getting a little bored with this schtick?
My vote for his replacement is Johnathan Schwartz. Apple needs to get into the enterprise. They had the chance to buy Sun, but missed the opportunity, Sun would have been worth it just for Solaris and IP. Hopefully if Schwartz moves in he can guide them into the enterprise and lure Sun Engineers to Apple.
The marketing can be handled by Apple's vast talent pool and other exec's along with new ideas.
Perish the thought. As though running one company to the ground and having it bought out weren't enough......
I wanted to buy the iPad before Apple even announced it. I have an iPhone, my wife an iTouch and I wanted the iPad eg for reading newspapers. I have to say I don't like Apple's move of censorship and the press is becoming cautious here. Apple cannot dictate the newspapers what they are allowed to publish. At the moment the problem are only pictures of women with not much clothes on. It doesn't matter whether one likes those pictures or not. But it must be the buyer who decides what he wants to seeand read, not Apple. I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
Spare us the moral sermon will you. Your puffed up outrage is disgusting. I guess you won't be shopping at your local grocery store either because they don't offer Penthouse or Playboy at the checkout counter for your 10 year old to peruse while you pay for the groceries.
It's not just flash Apple doesn't support. There's also no way to play Silverlight content, or WMV content. WMV is used extensively on sites such as IGN and GameTrailers for example.
Mobile Safari also lacks support for any plugins, so no Stumble, Adblock, XMarks, or any of the popular extentions out there.
Some sites are also blocked, it's rare admitedly, but here in the UK the BBC's hugely popular iPlayer site is blocked in Mobile Safari unless the iPhone is using wi-fi.
I believe it's also disingenuous to pretend that Apple's very strict censorship of the app store does not equal internet censorship. The lack of flash/silverlight in Safari means the app store is the only way to achieve things which would otherwise be possible through a browser.
I hope that the success of Android, and presumably Windows Phone (the demos at Mix looked great btw) will force Apple to move to an open, uncensored model. I thought walled gardens went out of fashion with AOL, but sadly it seems not.
You are so right! I have just noticed my experience with the iPhone has been crapped on by the lack of Silverlight support. NOT!
I like my iPhone experience and could care less that Flash makes it to the iPhone. My experience with the iPhone since day one has been super awesome!
I disagree. I would still maintain that Google is the least evil company of all others. The problem with them, however, is they try to maintain this huge "holier than thou" "we are openner than you (although we never open things where our competitive advantage lies)" "do no evil (unless its in your interest)" BS.
I prefer Apple/MS etc. because they don't pretend to be the complete opposite of the huge corporations they are.
It's any company best interest with a valuable name to do good. If your name is worth money, your going to try not to devalue it. If you go beyond expectations, you make it back in a better image and positive press. Any long term investors are going to want a company to do good. They generally don't want to give any products away for free though. I image we will see more and more business tie-ins in googles services so they make more money for their investors. Given enough compromises, they may start to look more evil.
Apple has it easy because they don't offer free services, so they don't need to get mixed up in advertising and other business deals that make their products worse for the consumer in order to continue offering them for free. Apple also has well defined ideals that investors know not to cross without upsetting Apple employees and management instead of Google's generic do good statement that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Google will probably continue to do okay in the "do good" department as long as they remain profitable and don't get into financially motivated search results. I personally don't worry about companies like Apple and Google that are in the public eye. I would worry more about relatively unknown companies that are suppliers and have little regard for their image. At least Apple is doing better audits of them.
If their really was anything meaningful in the banned applications, I'm sure we would see Apple make an exception. The free press can print whatever they want just like Apple can publish whatever they want. It is just another medium. This isn't a free speech issue. You can always get the word out through other means if you want to say something.
That said--to continue ranting, I don't really care for companies that spend lots of money on altruistic purposes that are not in anyway related to their products. If your a coffee company that wants to do good then sell organic coffee. Don't sell coffee from unknown suppliers and then spend money on breast cancer or random charities. I'm not going to hold it against them, but I'm going to base my purchase on quality and impact of the product on humanity or the environment. If I wanted to give money to a charity, I would do it myself not buy a product. Don't spend money on non-profit medical research when you could be making your own products easier to use. I'm not criticizing Bill Gates with that statement, because that is his money and not Microsoft's. It would be nice if more companies would concentrate both on making the best product possible and making it mass market. I can't afford the best product possible if it is not a mass market product. It seems that more companies want to make a product cheaper over time instead of utilizing their market share making it higher quality over time.
Comments
Burning bridges is also a great career move. I challenge you to call all your former employers and tell them they suck and you don't need their stinking references anymore.
Tell me how that works out for ya.
None of my previous employers will give references. At best they will state the period I worked for them. So your challenge is, well, pointless.
In practical terms who has actually returned to a previous employer? I know a couple myself but they would certainly number in a clear minority. There's a reason you left them in the first place, right?
I guess this means WAR
Isn't there and app for that?
I wanted to buy the iPad before Apple even announced it. I have an iPhone, my wife an iTouch and I wanted the iPad eg for reading newspapers. I have to say I don't like Apple's move of censorship and the press is becoming cautious here. Apple cannot dictate the newspapers what they are allowed to publish. At the moment the problem are only pictures of women with not much clothes on. It doesn't matter whether one likes those pictures or not. But it must be the buyer who decides what he wants to seeand read, not Apple. I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
Apple's behaviour seems clear to me. They do not wish to be seen as the seller of "objectionable" material, but at the same time do not stop you from manually visiting another vendor who may sell such material.
Where it is clear that the content is coming from an external publisher and not Apple they place no limits on what you can view.
So I expect the iBooks application will only access an "approved" library of books because people will see it as Apple's book store.
No such limit is placed on third party book store apps because it's obvious the stores they represent are those of a third party.
You can use the Amazon app and Safari to buy anything Amazon sells.
The marketing can be handled by Apple's vast talent pool and other exec's along with new ideas.
He is in a lot of Google videos, is fairly well spoken and easy on the eyes. Could he be the new spokesface of Apple?
Tim Cook is a shoe-in for CEO but a dynamic public speaker he is NOT.
Phil Schiller is a marketing guy and it comes across in his presentation.
Scott Forstall isn't bad but lacks charisma.
I think you're confused here. Apple is not censoring content for the consumer - you can still get every web page from every pornographic site on the planet on your iPhone. Any developer can still make a web app to do anything, and the iPhone will run it.
All Apple has done is restrict what content Apple itself offers in its store. Developers are complaining because they can't piggyback on Apple's popularity to sell anything they want on iTunes.
Words right out of my mouth.
I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
Does it not concern you that the press often publishes lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and pornographic images, all under the banner of 'free speech'? Do you not understand that some companies would not like to have their products associated with this type of cheap, amoral, opportunistic media?
The Wall Street Journal recently launched WSJ. magazine, a very highly-polished magazine with a look-and-feel that screams "iPad".
For those who have access to the March 2010 issue, on page 28 there is a picture of a completely nude woman hovering over a bed. Granted it's in an ad, but the ad had to be approved by someone.
It'll be very, very interesting to see what Apple does when WSJ. lands in the App Store. What happens when "unsuitable" content gets through the garden walls?
Burning bridges is also a great career move. I challenge you to call all your former employers and tell them they suck and you don't need their stinking references anymore.
Tell me how that works out for ya.
I did, and my Dad cut off my allowance.
Thanks, though, I would say that in fairness to Google, one of the first Verizon phones using Android has Bing as the default search engine, which speaks to the degree of heavy-handedness Google is NOT employing.
QUOTE: Imagine Apple allowing an iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad to ship with doubleTwist as the default media library management app vs. iTunes. Never, right?
No Verizon Android phones have BING on them. You may be thinking of updates recently with Windows or Blackberry, (you can remove these too). Android on Verizon is Android.
Maybe your confusing the motorola black flip with At&t that has YAHOO as the search engine, not open access or third party software allowed. BING may be closer to your next iphone then you can imagine.
Double twist for free bless them, syncs my former blackberry to my Mac & for many users that want to use their preferred computing device to their preferred choice of device. Many, including some apple employees in cupertino i know would love the iphone on not a second rate carrier in the untied states but until then.....
I would love to see Apple, which did inspire me in it's former years to take on some of these practices such as a open access platform,(there is always hacking, remember they didn't like apps at first) working with others devices in using their computers, & selling that phone with a multiple of telecoms.....Kinda why Android's doing well.
@theobold, My bad. I confused both carrier and search engine. It was AT&T and the phone is Motorola Backflip with Yahoo as search engine, as you rightly note. I think the point remains about Google facilitating CHOICE, which is consistent with their loose coupling model.
Thanks for the correction.
......This sounds like a cover for an open-source type ideology. He's not concerned about consumer freedom, he's concerned about developer freedom. Those aren't exactly the same things.
+1
You nailed it.
No, you don't. Can you tell me what bonus to the consumer is the omission of the applications such as Google Voice from the AppStore ? Consumers have less choice. Hope people will recognize that and vote with their valet before its too late. Freedom is a precious thing.
...Apple needs to get into the enterprise. They had the chance to buy Sun, but missed the opportunity, Sun would have been worth it just for Solaris and IP. Hopefully if Schwartz moves in he can guide them into the enterprise and lure Sun Engineers to Apple.
Not going to happen. If Schwartz ever cross Apple's doorstep, the same day Jobs suffer the heart attack. Schwartz is Anti-Jobs.
In a way, YES.
The prospect of MS's two deadliest competitors declaring open war on each-other is nothing short of a miracle for Redmond.
Even _I_ would be monkey dancing if I were in Ballmer's shoes.
The customer will be a winner... for a while. Like any war, you don't want to be on the side that ultimately loses.
You are so right. How sad.
What sucks in all this saga is that Apple + Google could have been a KILLER partnership in shaping the new mobile internet world against an old and common foe in Microsoft.
I can really understand Steve Jobs' disappointment and sense of betrayal and disgust with the way Google entered the phone business (see excellent article in NYT).
Google did it in a way that most definitely compromises their relationship with Apple by indirectly offering patented features like multitouch through partner channels and worst, a hardware + software design closely resembling the iPhone (can you honestly say that the nexus one/google phone does not resemble the iPhone?).
Google could have done things quite differently in deploying its mobile strategy and taken its fair share of the pie by keeping its alliance with Apple strong. It had to be greedy. So instead, it screwed Apple in the very same way that Microsoft screwed Apple back in the old days. Copy and paste. Maybe that is why Jobs is taking this so personally. He expected more from the young folks at Google and hoped that they would live up to their own mantra. Kumbaya. Google could have been a first class citizen on the iPhone by offering great services and maintaining their search supremacy on mobiles. Apple was never interested in the search business.
What happens now? I predict the beginning of Microsoft's return to glory if it plays its cards right. Have you seen project natal? Bing? Windows mobile? Windows 7? Zune HD? Photosynth? Seadragon? They're pretty darn cool and promising. Bing search results aren't that far from Google's result if you give it a go. Say whatever you want but the folks at Redmond are poised for a comeback. They have a boatload of smart people and cash.
Hopefully, the ruling comes out that HTC is infringing on some of Apple's patents and their partners abandon multitouch on Android altogether (very unlikely) leaving Google with a lesson in modesty and perhaps a chance to refocus on its core competencies.
Perhaps this will preserve one of the last truly great American technology company. If not, well you folks in America might as well bid farewell to another American icon as HTC and other Taiwanese/Chinese/Korean/Finnish commodity phone makers pump out iPhone clones with no fear of retaliation and respect of IP. All this thanks in good part to "open" software from Google!
I'm sure at some point Apple will have a section and rate the apps on their content as groups of consumers will demand it. Either that or jailbreaking will just be the norm.
Your not making much sense here. Also you don't know much about feminism if you think "feminists" equate with the religious right in terms of the appeal of censorship, but I guess that shows what kind of person you are.
The point about this recent censorship is that the app store already has controls for adult content etc. There is no logical/rational reason for then saying on top of that, that such mild things as girls in underwear or bikinis are also completely banned. Add to that, the fact that the ban is not universal anyway and targeted only at developers that don't pay as much money to Apple as those that are allowed to display this stuff and it just makes no sense at all.
Lastly, Steve Jobs, like a lot of people has taken LSD. Your assertion that he "repeatedly talks about how great (it is)" is just bunk.
So I just have to ask -- what "kind of person" do you think I am, oh holy judger of judges? I can't wait to hear this.
It's not just flash Apple doesn't support. There's also no way to play Silverlight content, or WMV content. WMV is used extensively on sites such as IGN and GameTrailers for example.
Mobile Safari also lacks support for any plugins, so no Stumble, Adblock, XMarks, or any of the popular extentions out there.
Some sites are also blocked, it's rare admitedly, but here in the UK the BBC's hugely popular iPlayer site is blocked in Mobile Safari unless the iPhone is using wi-fi.
I believe it's also disingenuous to pretend that Apple's very strict censorship of the app store does not equal internet censorship. The lack of flash/silverlight in Safari means the app store is the only way to achieve things which would otherwise be possible through a browser.
I hope that the success of Android, and presumably Windows Phone (the demos at Mix looked great btw) will force Apple to move to an open, uncensored model. I thought walled gardens went out of fashion with AOL, but sadly it seems not.
Ah.... there you are, back again, complaining about Apple and talking up Android..... so what else is new!? Surely, you do have something - anything - different to say? Aren't you getting a little bored with this schtick?
Yawn.......
My vote for his replacement is Johnathan Schwartz. Apple needs to get into the enterprise. They had the chance to buy Sun, but missed the opportunity, Sun would have been worth it just for Solaris and IP. Hopefully if Schwartz moves in he can guide them into the enterprise and lure Sun Engineers to Apple.
The marketing can be handled by Apple's vast talent pool and other exec's along with new ideas.
Perish the thought. As though running one company to the ground and having it bought out weren't enough......
I wanted to buy the iPad before Apple even announced it. I have an iPhone, my wife an iTouch and I wanted the iPad eg for reading newspapers. I have to say I don't like Apple's move of censorship and the press is becoming cautious here. Apple cannot dictate the newspapers what they are allowed to publish. At the moment the problem are only pictures of women with not much clothes on. It doesn't matter whether one likes those pictures or not. But it must be the buyer who decides what he wants to seeand read, not Apple. I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
Spare us the moral sermon will you. Your puffed up outrage is disgusting. I guess you won't be shopping at your local grocery store either because they don't offer Penthouse or Playboy at the checkout counter for your 10 year old to peruse while you pay for the groceries.
Hypocrite!
He is in a lot of Google videos, is fairly well spoken and easy on the eyes. Could he be the new spokesface of Apple?
Tim Cook is a shoe-in for CEO but a dynamic public speaker he is NOT.
Phil Schiller is a marketing guy and it comes across in his presentation.
Scott Forstall isn't bad but lacks charisma.
What is your take on J. Ives?
I think he gets more Steve like every year...
It's not just flash Apple doesn't support. There's also no way to play Silverlight content, or WMV content. WMV is used extensively on sites such as IGN and GameTrailers for example.
Mobile Safari also lacks support for any plugins, so no Stumble, Adblock, XMarks, or any of the popular extentions out there.
Some sites are also blocked, it's rare admitedly, but here in the UK the BBC's hugely popular iPlayer site is blocked in Mobile Safari unless the iPhone is using wi-fi.
I believe it's also disingenuous to pretend that Apple's very strict censorship of the app store does not equal internet censorship. The lack of flash/silverlight in Safari means the app store is the only way to achieve things which would otherwise be possible through a browser.
I hope that the success of Android, and presumably Windows Phone (the demos at Mix looked great btw) will force Apple to move to an open, uncensored model. I thought walled gardens went out of fashion with AOL, but sadly it seems not.
You are so right! I have just noticed my experience with the iPhone has been crapped on by the lack of Silverlight support. NOT!
I like my iPhone experience and could care less that Flash makes it to the iPhone. My experience with the iPhone since day one has been super awesome!
I disagree. I would still maintain that Google is the least evil company of all others. The problem with them, however, is they try to maintain this huge "holier than thou" "we are openner than you (although we never open things where our competitive advantage lies)" "do no evil (unless its in your interest)" BS.
I prefer Apple/MS etc. because they don't pretend to be the complete opposite of the huge corporations they are.
It's any company best interest with a valuable name to do good. If your name is worth money, your going to try not to devalue it. If you go beyond expectations, you make it back in a better image and positive press. Any long term investors are going to want a company to do good. They generally don't want to give any products away for free though. I image we will see more and more business tie-ins in googles services so they make more money for their investors. Given enough compromises, they may start to look more evil.
Apple has it easy because they don't offer free services, so they don't need to get mixed up in advertising and other business deals that make their products worse for the consumer in order to continue offering them for free. Apple also has well defined ideals that investors know not to cross without upsetting Apple employees and management instead of Google's generic do good statement that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Google will probably continue to do okay in the "do good" department as long as they remain profitable and don't get into financially motivated search results. I personally don't worry about companies like Apple and Google that are in the public eye. I would worry more about relatively unknown companies that are suppliers and have little regard for their image. At least Apple is doing better audits of them.
If their really was anything meaningful in the banned applications, I'm sure we would see Apple make an exception. The free press can print whatever they want just like Apple can publish whatever they want. It is just another medium. This isn't a free speech issue. You can always get the word out through other means if you want to say something.
That said--to continue ranting, I don't really care for companies that spend lots of money on altruistic purposes that are not in anyway related to their products. If your a coffee company that wants to do good then sell organic coffee. Don't sell coffee from unknown suppliers and then spend money on breast cancer or random charities. I'm not going to hold it against them, but I'm going to base my purchase on quality and impact of the product on humanity or the environment. If I wanted to give money to a charity, I would do it myself not buy a product. Don't spend money on non-profit medical research when you could be making your own products easier to use. I'm not criticizing Bill Gates with that statement, because that is his money and not Microsoft's. It would be nice if more companies would concentrate both on making the best product possible and making it mass market. I can't afford the best product possible if it is not a mass market product. It seems that more companies want to make a product cheaper over time instead of utilizing their market share making it higher quality over time.