Exactly. If the buyer could decide, then the developers would choose whatever tools they think best, and the cream would rise to the top.
But in this situation, the buyers are not being given the ability to decide. That's fine. Apple can carry or reject anything it wants.
But to justify the move as a way to preserve the quality of apps? That seems unlikely, given existing reality.
So, you're saying that:
1) The app store is full of crap apps
2) The way to improve this is to approve apps generated by a tool/process that is known to regurgitate crap apps that dumb-down the UEX
You seem to resent that Apple can choose what it wants to sell in its store. What's wrong with that? Even a flea market has limits on what can be sold under the aegis of the host.
527Mb?? uh, no.... how about a little code optimization guys??
$4.99 an issue? $60 a year? I can get it for less in print.
I might consider buying one issue just to "experience" it, but I'm not going to hog up my limited (and relatively costly) iPad memory with one magazine... If I bought in, it would be a regular exercise of "read & delete". And can you imagine trying to download it via AT&T's 3G service? It would take forever...
Much as I love Wired, I'll pass on this one until those conditions improve...
The big difference between saying, "Objective-C apps only," vs. "Only high quality apps," is that the first is an objective (no pun intended) standard, whereas, the second is highly subjective. Who exactly would make the determination on quality, and how?
There was an app that displayed a picture of a duck and played a quacking noise. It was, if I recall correctly, pulled by Apple for "limited functionality". One of the people commenting somewhere about this pointed out that their infant child was utterly fascinated by this app and that it was great for distracting the child when they began to do those annoying things that children sometimes do. (I'm not sure if I have all the details correct, but the gist of it, I think is.)
So, here's an app that at first glance appears to be utterly useless. But, in fact, under certain circumstances, it has high utility. Unless the issue is that the app simply doesn't run, it's almost impossible to make a universal determination of quality.
I think I basically agree with you here. Subjectivity is a gigantic problem in making these kinds of determinations.
That's why the rest of my post was more specific about the kind of (reasonably objective) measures that could be taken that would cut down on the "junk apps" in the app store. I think objective or semi-objective criteria could be used to determine when an app is actually a book or an advertisement or not, or whether it should be a web-app, etc. and that applying those criteria would eliminate a lot of the bad apps without getting subjective. That was the point I was trying to make anyway.
I agree 100% about the duck app you mention, (it's probably something I would buy myself and I don't have children). Notice also that it would still survive as an app if the criteria I'm suggesting were applied. It's not a book or an advertisement, it's not anything that would be better off as a web-app etc.
All the problems I have personally with the app store and it's criteria are problems with the subjectivity they employ in their decisions. As long as there is a rating system for instance, there is simply no justification for eliminating apps based on subjective criteria of what's "appropriate." It's not an abstract situation either. I have a couple of apps on my phone right now (and I buy an amazingly small amount of apps overall), that have been banned from the app store for one reason or another.
There are real, business, technical and other reasons for most of the restrictions on the app store and personally I don't think the flash apps guys have any real argument that makes sense. On the other hand, subjective decisions made by Apple's censors anger me immensely. I'm old-fashioned in many respects, so to me right is right, and wrong is wrong and most people know the difference from age six onwards.
Censorship is *always* wrong, unless you can point to some real, material damage that the lack of said censorship causes. Being "offended," applying a religious standard, not liking something, or not thinking it's up to your aesthetic standards is simply not enough reason to ban things IMO.
-- they do not harm the device (crash, slow performance, drain battery, etc)
.
I agree with all of that post you make except above. Bad programming techniques in objective c or c an cause memory leaks, crashes and bad performance using apples tools. In your favor, Apple reviews all apps, which i personally love, and catches most of the bad programming, but some bad apps leaks through the system.
The point that is missed is that Apple does not "need" Flash at all. There is no reason for them to compromise or meet in the middle on that issue. Jobs' way of compromising with Adobe is by promoting Creative Suite when it updated its HTML5 tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
That's stubborn businesses my friend. If either side gave a little, they would meet in the middle. Instead, both feel they are 100% correct and will not budge on their point of view.
Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
That is the basis of the investigation.
What the hell is "the app market"?
Apple has a store (several stores, actually): including the Apple app store.
If you don't like the product that the Apple store carries, or how it treats its suppliers-- then store go to the Android store; the Pre store; the Rim store; the Nokia store... And tell them how they should run their businesses!
Yes. And no reasons were given why such actions are impossible for Apple, but SOP for every other retailer on earth.
Your position seems to be that Apple has no ability, or no practical capability, to discern the quality of the wares it wishes to sell. That strikes me as incorrect.
To clarify the rule does not state that third party development tools cannot be used at all. They just cannot be used to interact directly with iPhone API's. Apple has previously had nightmare problems with third party development tools, that is the reason this rule is in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
If the tool is inadequate, the developer will not use it.
Dominating a market is not illegal. Who exactly in our discussion is eliminating competition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
527Mb?? uh, no.... how about a little code optimization guys??
$4.99 an issue? $60 a year? I can get it for less in print.
I might consider buying one issue just to "experience" it, but I'm not going to hog up my limited (and relatively costly) iPad memory with one magazine... If I bought in, it would be a regular exercise of "read & delete". And can you imagine trying to download it via AT&T's 3G service? It would take forever...
Much as I love Wired, I'll pass on this one until those conditions improve...
Save your money unless you seek to experience a good idea done badly!
The point that is missed is that Apple does not "need" Flash at all. There is no reason for them to compromise or meet in the middle on that issue. Jobs' way of compromising with Adobe is by promoting Creative Suite when it updated its HTML5 tools.
There's a very obvious reason actually: Websites use flash, and people will browse websites with the ipad lol
Didn't Apple say they were creating an alternative to flash? It should run great seeing as how they'll have access to the innards that Adobe needs access to in order to get flash to run smoothly. Then of course Apple will talk about it like they're the only ones who did it correctly. I'm curious to see how it holds up on other platforms.
Exactly. If the buyer could decide, then the developers would choose whatever tools they think best, and the cream would rise to the top.
But in this situation, the buyers are not being given the ability to decide. That's fine. Apple can carry or reject anything it wants.
But to justify the move as a way to preserve the quality of apps? That seems unlikely, given existing reality.
Sorry for going way back, but I'm dying to hear an answer to this! As a buyer myself, what is it that I cannot decide? I browse the App Store pretty frequently. Sometimes, I see apps that interest me at which point I may decide to check out screen shots and reviews. If I decide I would like to try the app, I'll purchase it. If there's a free version, I'll decide to try it before making a financial commitment. When I get some spare time, I'll make the decision to actually try the app first hand. As I use it, I'll be deciding whether I want to keep it or not. If it's very bad, I'll decide to delete it and move on.
A friend of mine has an iPod touch that was given to him as a gift (after he had decided to purchase the Nexus One.) So, he gets to compare iPhone apps and Android apps first hand and by extension make an informed decision about which ones he prefers. We don't agree on everything of course, but we have both decided sperately that Blackberry and Windows Mobile are both not worth having.
There are thousands of apps in the App Store. I haven't the time or even the disk space (on my MacBook Pro) for all of them, so if I'm going to have some of them, I'll have to decide which ones. Which brings me back to my original question: As a buyer, what is it that I'm not deciding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
I don't take any real hard and fast stand on the merits of the contention.
Fair enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
It is also entirely possible that I misunderstand the contention, and that my understanding is incorrect
So here's my understanding of the contention:
Apple has developed a quality platform for application development. They are the owners of this platform and as such they have the authority and the responsibility to distribute the platform as they see fit. As owners of their platform, they have the authority to determine how apps get developed and distributed to the platform. They have produced a development environment which they provide at no extra cost to developers who purchase a Mac.
Adobe has a platform too. But, Adobe's platform is designed to run on many different devices. This design is inherently flawed precisely because all those devices are different. One size does not fit all. Apple recognizes this and has rightly chosen to opt out of supporting Adobe's platform on their devices. Adobe, having an over developed sense of entitlement (and a lazy, communistic attitude toward product development) has decided to accuse Apple of being "unfair".
To put it simply, Apple does not recognize Adobe's assumed rights to Apple's platform; and Adobe does not recognize Apple's actual rights to Apple's platform. If that's not the cause of the contention, I don't know what is.
2) The way to improve this is to approve apps generated by a tool/process that is known to regurgitate crap apps that dumb-down the UEX
You seem to resent that Apple can choose what it wants to sell in its store. What's wrong with that? Even a flea market has limits on what can be sold under the aegis of the host.
.
I wouldn't say that it is full of crap apps. Instead, I would say that so many are available that the excuse that "we won't sell crap apps" is not believable.
I am not saying what the proper path is to remedy this. I am saying that the change to the developer agreement is unlikely to be motivated by a desire to remedy this.
I think that those who do not exert monopoly power should be free to sell or not sell anything they want.
Apple has a store (several stores, actually): including the Apple app store.
If you don't like the product that the Apple store carries, or how it treats its suppliers-- then store go to the Android store; the Pre store; the Rim store; the Nokia store... And tell them how they should run their businesses!
.
By that phrase I meant "the market for Applications to be installed on mobile devices".
And the current antitrust inquiries, IIUC, are intended to determine whether or not actions need to be taken to maintain and expand the choices you cite.
I agree with all of that post you make except above. Bad programming techniques in objective c or c an cause memory leaks, crashes and bad performance using apples tools. In your favor, Apple reviews all apps, which i personally love, and catches most of the bad programming, but some bad apps leaks through the system.
I said that Apple was screenning for apps that didn't...
Their screening process doesn't catch everything... but, as a user, I am thankful that they try.
Programming in ObjC (with manual memory management) does not guarantee a good program, but it is easier for Apple to catch the bad ones during evaluation/approval.
However, programming in Flash has been shown to result in inferior apps on the desktop (with abundant resources), and therefore will, most likely, yield inferior apps on the mobile platform (with finite resources).
So, it is understandable that Apple ban the predominate tool for creating inferior apps, and spend its limited resources evaluating apps created with tools that usually produce [technically] good apps. (Whether these apps are of limited or broad appeal, is another question).
Dominating a market is not illegal. Who exactly in our discussion is eliminating competition?
I said "Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
That is the basis of the investigation."
I never claimed that dominating a market was illegal.
I said that there is concern when a dominant player uses its market power in a certain manner. Do you disagree?
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
You must have meant mediocre to you , unless you are arrogant enough to set standards for all of us folk ..... hmmmm?
Sorry for going way back, but I'm dying to hear an answer to this! As a buyer myself, what is it that I cannot decide?
As a buyer, you cannot decide on the quality of those apps that Apple does not sell.
With exceptions of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchfulOne
So here's my understanding of the contention:
Apple has developed a quality platform for application development. They are the owners of this platform and as such they have the authority and the responsibility to distribute the platform as they see fit. As owners of their platform, they have the authority to determine how apps get developed and distributed to the platform. They have produced a development environment which they provide at no extra cost to developers who purchase a Mac.
Well, yeah. Of course. And so long as their actions have little or no affect on mobile app/mobile hardware development in general, nobody gives a damn.
But if/when a company develops monopoly power, and therefore their actions affect the viability of the relevant market as a whole, people perk up.
And if such companies are determined to have taken such actions intending to stifle/prevent competition, or to erect barriers to entry, then it rises to a level somewhat higher than mere concern.
Comments
Exactly. If the buyer could decide, then the developers would choose whatever tools they think best, and the cream would rise to the top.
But in this situation, the buyers are not being given the ability to decide. That's fine. Apple can carry or reject anything it wants.
But to justify the move as a way to preserve the quality of apps? That seems unlikely, given existing reality.
So, you're saying that:
1) The app store is full of crap apps
2) The way to improve this is to approve apps generated by a tool/process that is known to regurgitate crap apps that dumb-down the UEX
You seem to resent that Apple can choose what it wants to sell in its store. What's wrong with that? Even a flea market has limits on what can be sold under the aegis of the host.
.
$4.99 an issue? $60 a year? I can get it for less in print.
I might consider buying one issue just to "experience" it, but I'm not going to hog up my limited (and relatively costly) iPad memory with one magazine... If I bought in, it would be a regular exercise of "read & delete". And can you imagine trying to download it via AT&T's 3G service? It would take forever...
Much as I love Wired, I'll pass on this one until those conditions improve...
The big difference between saying, "Objective-C apps only," vs. "Only high quality apps," is that the first is an objective (no pun intended) standard, whereas, the second is highly subjective. Who exactly would make the determination on quality, and how?
There was an app that displayed a picture of a duck and played a quacking noise. It was, if I recall correctly, pulled by Apple for "limited functionality". One of the people commenting somewhere about this pointed out that their infant child was utterly fascinated by this app and that it was great for distracting the child when they began to do those annoying things that children sometimes do. (I'm not sure if I have all the details correct, but the gist of it, I think is.)
So, here's an app that at first glance appears to be utterly useless. But, in fact, under certain circumstances, it has high utility. Unless the issue is that the app simply doesn't run, it's almost impossible to make a universal determination of quality.
I think I basically agree with you here. Subjectivity is a gigantic problem in making these kinds of determinations.
That's why the rest of my post was more specific about the kind of (reasonably objective) measures that could be taken that would cut down on the "junk apps" in the app store. I think objective or semi-objective criteria could be used to determine when an app is actually a book or an advertisement or not, or whether it should be a web-app, etc. and that applying those criteria would eliminate a lot of the bad apps without getting subjective. That was the point I was trying to make anyway.
I agree 100% about the duck app you mention, (it's probably something I would buy myself and I don't have children). Notice also that it would still survive as an app if the criteria I'm suggesting were applied. It's not a book or an advertisement, it's not anything that would be better off as a web-app etc.
All the problems I have personally with the app store and it's criteria are problems with the subjectivity they employ in their decisions. As long as there is a rating system for instance, there is simply no justification for eliminating apps based on subjective criteria of what's "appropriate." It's not an abstract situation either. I have a couple of apps on my phone right now (and I buy an amazingly small amount of apps overall), that have been banned from the app store for one reason or another.
There are real, business, technical and other reasons for most of the restrictions on the app store and personally I don't think the flash apps guys have any real argument that makes sense. On the other hand, subjective decisions made by Apple's censors anger me immensely. I'm old-fashioned in many respects, so to me right is right, and wrong is wrong and most people know the difference from age six onwards.
Censorship is *always* wrong, unless you can point to some real, material damage that the lack of said censorship causes. Being "offended," applying a religious standard, not liking something, or not thinking it's up to your aesthetic standards is simply not enough reason to ban things IMO.
-- they do not harm the device (crash, slow performance, drain battery, etc)
.
I agree with all of that post you make except above. Bad programming techniques in objective c or c an cause memory leaks, crashes and bad performance using apples tools. In your favor, Apple reviews all apps, which i personally love, and catches most of the bad programming, but some bad apps leaks through the system.
They lost me at Five Bucks.
the lost me at five... HUNDRED MEGS.
is that per issue or are subsequent updates.. "content only"
That's stubborn businesses my friend. If either side gave a little, they would meet in the middle. Instead, both feel they are 100% correct and will not budge on their point of view.
Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
That is the basis of the investigation.
What the hell is "the app market"?
Apple has a store (several stores, actually): including the Apple app store.
If you don't like the product that the Apple store carries, or how it treats its suppliers-- then store go to the Android store; the Pre store; the Rim store; the Nokia store... And tell them how they should run their businesses!
.
We've already covered why that isn't possible.
Yes. And no reasons were given why such actions are impossible for Apple, but SOP for every other retailer on earth.
Your position seems to be that Apple has no ability, or no practical capability, to discern the quality of the wares it wishes to sell. That strikes me as incorrect.
If the tool is inadequate, the developer will not use it.
Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
That is the basis of the investigation.
This is why I am sublimely happy to routinely ignore your posts herein. Domination of a market is not bad in and of itself
I never made any claim that domination of a market is bad in and of itself.
Please keep yourself sublimely happy. You sadden both of us when you read my posts but don't understand them.
Bye.
527Mb?? uh, no.... how about a little code optimization guys??
$4.99 an issue? $60 a year? I can get it for less in print.
I might consider buying one issue just to "experience" it, but I'm not going to hog up my limited (and relatively costly) iPad memory with one magazine... If I bought in, it would be a regular exercise of "read & delete". And can you imagine trying to download it via AT&T's 3G service? It would take forever...
Much as I love Wired, I'll pass on this one until those conditions improve...
Save your money unless you seek to experience a good idea done badly!
.
The point that is missed is that Apple does not "need" Flash at all. There is no reason for them to compromise or meet in the middle on that issue. Jobs' way of compromising with Adobe is by promoting Creative Suite when it updated its HTML5 tools.
There's a very obvious reason actually: Websites use flash, and people will browse websites with the ipad lol
Didn't Apple say they were creating an alternative to flash? It should run great seeing as how they'll have access to the innards that Adobe needs access to in order to get flash to run smoothly. Then of course Apple will talk about it like they're the only ones who did it correctly. I'm curious to see how it holds up on other platforms.
Oh well. Beating a dead horse here.
Exactly. If the buyer could decide, then the developers would choose whatever tools they think best, and the cream would rise to the top.
But in this situation, the buyers are not being given the ability to decide. That's fine. Apple can carry or reject anything it wants.
But to justify the move as a way to preserve the quality of apps? That seems unlikely, given existing reality.
Sorry for going way back, but I'm dying to hear an answer to this! As a buyer myself, what is it that I cannot decide? I browse the App Store pretty frequently. Sometimes, I see apps that interest me at which point I may decide to check out screen shots and reviews. If I decide I would like to try the app, I'll purchase it. If there's a free version, I'll decide to try it before making a financial commitment. When I get some spare time, I'll make the decision to actually try the app first hand. As I use it, I'll be deciding whether I want to keep it or not. If it's very bad, I'll decide to delete it and move on.
A friend of mine has an iPod touch that was given to him as a gift (after he had decided to purchase the Nexus One.) So, he gets to compare iPhone apps and Android apps first hand and by extension make an informed decision about which ones he prefers. We don't agree on everything of course, but we have both decided sperately that Blackberry and Windows Mobile are both not worth having.
There are thousands of apps in the App Store. I haven't the time or even the disk space (on my MacBook Pro) for all of them, so if I'm going to have some of them, I'll have to decide which ones. Which brings me back to my original question: As a buyer, what is it that I'm not deciding?
I don't take any real hard and fast stand on the merits of the contention.
Fair enough
It is also entirely possible that I misunderstand the contention, and that my understanding is incorrect
So here's my understanding of the contention:
Apple has developed a quality platform for application development. They are the owners of this platform and as such they have the authority and the responsibility to distribute the platform as they see fit. As owners of their platform, they have the authority to determine how apps get developed and distributed to the platform. They have produced a development environment which they provide at no extra cost to developers who purchase a Mac.
Adobe has a platform too. But, Adobe's platform is designed to run on many different devices. This design is inherently flawed precisely because all those devices are different. One size does not fit all. Apple recognizes this and has rightly chosen to opt out of supporting Adobe's platform on their devices. Adobe, having an over developed sense of entitlement (and a lazy, communistic attitude toward product development) has decided to accuse Apple of being "unfair".
To put it simply, Apple does not recognize Adobe's assumed rights to Apple's platform; and Adobe does not recognize Apple's actual rights to Apple's platform. If that's not the cause of the contention, I don't know what is.
So, you're saying that:
1) The app store is full of crap apps
2) The way to improve this is to approve apps generated by a tool/process that is known to regurgitate crap apps that dumb-down the UEX
You seem to resent that Apple can choose what it wants to sell in its store. What's wrong with that? Even a flea market has limits on what can be sold under the aegis of the host.
.
I wouldn't say that it is full of crap apps. Instead, I would say that so many are available that the excuse that "we won't sell crap apps" is not believable.
I am not saying what the proper path is to remedy this. I am saying that the change to the developer agreement is unlikely to be motivated by a desire to remedy this.
I think that those who do not exert monopoly power should be free to sell or not sell anything they want.
Is that clear now?
What the hell is "the app market"?
Apple has a store (several stores, actually): including the Apple app store.
If you don't like the product that the Apple store carries, or how it treats its suppliers-- then store go to the Android store; the Pre store; the Rim store; the Nokia store... And tell them how they should run their businesses!
.
By that phrase I meant "the market for Applications to be installed on mobile devices".
And the current antitrust inquiries, IIUC, are intended to determine whether or not actions need to be taken to maintain and expand the choices you cite.
I agree with all of that post you make except above. Bad programming techniques in objective c or c an cause memory leaks, crashes and bad performance using apples tools. In your favor, Apple reviews all apps, which i personally love, and catches most of the bad programming, but some bad apps leaks through the system.
I said that Apple was screenning for apps that didn't...
Their screening process doesn't catch everything... but, as a user, I am thankful that they try.
Programming in ObjC (with manual memory management) does not guarantee a good program, but it is easier for Apple to catch the bad ones during evaluation/approval.
However, programming in Flash has been shown to result in inferior apps on the desktop (with abundant resources), and therefore will, most likely, yield inferior apps on the mobile platform (with finite resources).
So, it is understandable that Apple ban the predominate tool for creating inferior apps, and spend its limited resources evaluating apps created with tools that usually produce [technically] good apps. (Whether these apps are of limited or broad appeal, is another question).
.
Dominating a market is not illegal. Who exactly in our discussion is eliminating competition?
I said "Everything you say is true of competitive markets. The concern is that the app market may be dominated by a player who is using that domination to eliminate competition. Without competition, there are no "welcoming arms".
That is a danger when one or a few companies dominate a market.
That is the basis of the investigation."
I never claimed that dominating a market was illegal.
I said that there is concern when a dominant player uses its market power in a certain manner. Do you disagree?
I call bullshit.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
You must have meant mediocre to you , unless you are arrogant enough to set standards for all of us folk ..... hmmmm?
Sorry for going way back, but I'm dying to hear an answer to this! As a buyer myself, what is it that I cannot decide?
As a buyer, you cannot decide on the quality of those apps that Apple does not sell.
With exceptions of course.
So here's my understanding of the contention:
Apple has developed a quality platform for application development. They are the owners of this platform and as such they have the authority and the responsibility to distribute the platform as they see fit. As owners of their platform, they have the authority to determine how apps get developed and distributed to the platform. They have produced a development environment which they provide at no extra cost to developers who purchase a Mac.
Well, yeah. Of course. And so long as their actions have little or no affect on mobile app/mobile hardware development in general, nobody gives a damn.
But if/when a company develops monopoly power, and therefore their actions affect the viability of the relevant market as a whole, people perk up.
And if such companies are determined to have taken such actions intending to stifle/prevent competition, or to erect barriers to entry, then it rises to a level somewhat higher than mere concern.