Of course BlackBerry won't sell as many Playbooks as Apple sold iPads. If Apple took cow turds and threw an apple logo on them and branded them iTurds, about 3 millions Apple followers would buy them in the first two months.
BlackBerry doesn't have as many cult members, thus won't sell as many tablets.
Don't follow what you're saying here: that Galaxy sales are > 1M?
If so, I'd love to see a cite.
What rock have you been living under?? They sold over 1M by the beginning of December.... they are probably at 2M by now with the holiday season and all.
What rock have you been living under?? They sold over 1M by the beginning of December.... they are probably at 2M by now with the holiday season and all.
Cite, or shut.
Oh I should add: (i) tech writers telling me that "Samsung says 1 million sold" does not cut it; they could very well have shipped 1 million, and it's all sitting there in the distribution channel, but not sold it; (ii) I'd like to see a cite for an official Samsung press release, e.g., from their website.
Of course BlackBerry won't sell as many Playbooks as Apple sold iPads. If Apple took cow turds and threw an apple logo on them and branded them iTurds, about 3 millions Apple followers would buy them in the first two months.
BlackBerry doesn't have as many cult members, thus won't sell as many tablets.
Ever wondered why Apple has a loyal following? Perhaps it's because they make excellent products ...
Macs have always been treated as second-class citizens in the retail world. Go into ANY computer store and check out the Mac software titles. There are VERY few. So where is a non-geek user to go?
Typical Mac users (not us here) may have a tough time finding applications they may need. Most don't know about and/or won't spend time digging around MacUpdate or VersionTracker or scouring web sites searching for apps or comparisons of titles. Never mind simply downloading and trying things out.
Remember, there are loads of Windows converts who have been taught to FEAR their computers and especially downloading, installing and deleting things at will. For them, that's a dumb and dangerous thing to do!
We longtime Mac users are quite spoiled in that regard.
For us it's: Hunt. Download. Install. Try. Pay for it or Trash it. Or just use it. Simple.
There's a fairly large and diverse number of third-party Mac developers who have written some excellent Mac software over the years. For them, having an Apple approved (safe) place to display and sell their wares is good for them, users and Apple. Win. Win. Win.
So, in that regard, the App Store will be a godsend not only for users, but also for developers.
What rock have you been living under?? They sold over 1M by the beginning of December.... they are probably at 2M by now with the holiday season and all.
I am sick of seeing this guy's face (and big f. ego) plastered all over every wiki page (as a personal appeal for donations) over the past couple of months or so.
Wikipedia's ok for casual info, but in terms of anything that matters it's full of lies, misinformation, and petty "editors" with an agenda putting it across over other users who might be more impartial and better informed but who don't have the time to devote and can't handle the fascist way wikipedia is run by blocks of editors with vested interests, who expurgate, whitewash and push their views across. And all that anonymously, and all that favoring some schmucks who for some strange reason seem to have too much time on their hands (maybe by virtue of getting pocket money from elsewhere for their editing and not needing to work...) to be online 24/7 dominating discussions, locking topics, reverting edits based on technicalities, and not letting anyone else's but their own views to be put across.
Back when I didn't know any better I tried suggesting an edit to an article only to hear arguments such as "we have already reached a consensus on this one in the talk page", and you go to the talk page and the same 5-6 people who think the article is their pet or their back yard, having reached a "consensus". And lo and behold if you try to raise a point, because as per wiki policies editors should be civil and assume good will, which translates to being self entitled and being bullies to anyone trying to modify what these precious few policing their articles as hawks have said.
That's freedom of information and knowledge courtesy of Jimbo Wales!
They should have hired professional editors, people who are qualified, and who would be accountable for what they write, and who'd write eponymously. These are the ones who should be responsible for the general management of the content, not some unknowns, who are unaccountable, and are curiously spending all their lives in wikipedia with no compensation what so ever (well not evident to any of the users at least...) But they don't care to clean up the mess.
How strange then that this guy talks about danger and freedoms, seemingly oblivious of the fact of what his site is doing for freedom and objectivity. It's not surprising that he used to run an adult oriented, quasi porn, quasi gambling website before wikipedia, he's brought the same ethos along to wikipedia. And now all of a sudden it's apple's fault for helping (finally!) developers actually make some profit off of their creations with the app stores, instead of good old pc paradigm of having people just steal their work.
Another bozo, joining the ranks of bozos who are on apple's case just because these days bad mouthing apple gives you easy publicity.
The Apple App Store is not dangerous. It's no more dangerous to "Internet freedom" than iTunes was. If anything, the pressure iTunes exerted on the music industry helped to open up standard formats and access to media like never before, over the Internet, from countless sources. The only danger the "App Store" poses is to Apple itself. If Apple's customers reject that type of distribution model for applications, then Apple will lose customers - it does nothing to the Internet.
Wikipedia's ok for casual info, but in terms of anything that matters it's full of lies, misinformation, and petty "editors" with an agenda putting it across over other users who might be more impartial and better informed but who don't have the time to devote and can't handle the fascist way wikipedia is run by blocks of editors with vested interests, who expurgate, whitewash and push their views across.
How strange then that this guy talks about danger and freedoms, seemingly oblivious of the fact of what his site is doing for freedom and objectivity.
That might come into his thinking, who knows? It's an interesting thought, but it's false. No, here's the thing:
Malls, and WALMART, destroy that localized economy. The mom and pop stores have to shut, they can't compete with the big box retailers or the new developments full of entertainment in the suburbs. And mom and pop can't afford to move out of the little store they have had for fifty years in order to rent space in a premium area. Their business dies.
Is that what the App Store is doing? No, quite the opposite. So, we have a few less unsophisticated websites to visit and trawl through looking for apps. Does that restrict the landscape of the net in the same way malls kill the town center? The only similarity is that "everything is in one place".
Rather, small-time developers can now compete with software houses that could afford to have high-profile websites and shelf space in physical stores and costly and sophisticated methods of distribution. The terms, benefits, exposure and services provided by the App Store are great for... small developers (the mom and pop shops of the internet landscape). And the consumer. The App Store levels the landscape, disproportionately helping the small developer who wouldn't be able to distribute internationally otherwise. The developer can concentrate on his product and have it delivered without being a website designer or businessman. More win-wins with this scenario.
"Fewer traffic to smaller independent software houses."? No, far more business for these smaller houses. Just read the success stories of independent, one-man houses who are getting the exposure and downloads and revenue of the big boys. Am I going to go find some crappy website that I read about on some geeky blog somewhere; and work out what to do to get my purchase downloaded and installed and working; and worry about the security of their payment processing; what about the worry that I may end up getting a pirate copy instead of paying the developer for the real thing? No, I'm just going to fire up the App Store app and put money directly into the small developer's pocket.
+1
This IS required reading by all naysayers and bashers of the App Store!
Oh I should add: (i) tech writers telling me that "Samsung says 1 million sold" does not cut it; they could very well have shipped 1 million, and it's all sitting there in the distribution channel, but not sold it; (ii) I'd like to see a cite for an official Samsung press release, e.g., from their website.
Yes you SHOULD add.... all you have to do it do a Google search of "galaxy tab sells million" and TONS of tech sites have it listed as early December. No idea if Samsung has it on their site or not.
Yes you SHOULD add.... all you have to do it do a Google search of "galaxy tab sells million" and TONS of tech sites have it listed as early December. No idea if Samsung has it on their site or not.
Your response is Exhibit A for why Wikipedia has an authenticity issue too.
Go do some real work now, such as peddling Galaxy Tabs.
Don't follow what you're saying here: that Galaxy sales are > 1M?
If so, I'd love to see a cite.
It’s been stated as such. The PlayBook looks to be much more appealing in many ways so I expect it to fly past the Tab. It also shows that conumers now want tablets and 7” tablets at that… even if they are pretty shitty.
Are you that uninformed that you think Fox News has anything to do with it?
Fox is as full of crap as CNN, and round and round it goes.
All an informed individual has to do is search certain topics on Wiki to fully appreciate the disinformation campaign being run through that website. As I posted before, it holds exactly 50% irrefutable fact, and 50% complete bs lies.
Is Steve Jobs spooning you right now? Here is an idea, Freedom of Choice! Allow third party OTA installations without asking for Papa's permission, warn the user of the danger but let the user choose! Its a mobile computing platform just like a Apple Macintosh not a toaster.
So I dont buy it? I'll go to google where I have more installation freedom but they will mine all my personal data to exploit me in the future. Maybe I'll check out WP7, ohh wait they are doing both.
God your the customer, pretend for once like your in the drivers seat, looking after your own self interest and demanding progress instead of running PR for Apple.
Choice #1:
You as a consumer can choose which phone to buy
Choice #2:
You as a consumer have the choice of installing any application from the AppStore
Choice #3:
You as the owner of an iOS device have the choice of doing what you want with it, including jailbreaking it or throwing it against the wall.
Not a Choice:
What you cannot choose to do is tell Apple how to run their business or how they're going to make/design their own products. They make a product, you either like it or you don't. It's really that simple. And I'm not just defending Apple here, I'm defending anyone's desire and ability to create something.
You can't go to a car dealership and expect a car with three wheels.
You can't go to Best Buy and expect that they sell computers with 5 1/4 floppy drives.
You can't expect H.264 support in FireFox from Mozilla.
You can't expect Verizon to remove pre-installed crap ware from their phones.
You can't go to an art gallery and expect that a piece of art be modified more to your liking.
Just because you can "Have it Your Way" at Burger King doesn't mean McDonald's is going to listen to your demands as well.
Sorry, but even companies have the "Freedom of Choice!"... the freedom to make a product anyway they want and present it the consumer and leave it up to them to decide if they want to buy it or not.
"Freedom of Choice" does not mean there must be different choices. It means the freedom to choose when there is a choice. Your freedom of choice does not give you the right to force someone else to do it your way, which would be to take away their freedom of choice.
The AppStore only exists because Apple decided to open up development on the iPhone. How about Apple chooses to shut it down? What it make you happier if you didn't have any choices at all? 6 million original iPhones were sold with zero app choices other than what came on the device.
How about Apple chooses to discontinue all iOS devices? Would having one less smart phone choice make you happier? It would definitely give one less thing to complain about.
What I don't understand is people's sense of entitlement... Someone creates something. It didn't exist before, now it exists. Instead of letting other people enjoy this thing, there are people who feel "gipped" because it wasn't created in a way that makes sense to them, so instead of just letting those people who do enjoy it have it, these people feel they need to protest until it is changed to something more in agreement with their sensibilities. They could move on and continue to look for something else that might be better for them, but apparently they'd rather spend their time being disgruntled and complain about it.
Quote:
Its up to us to mold the construct of how the corporation behaves in our society, its the dog and has its purpose but we are supposed to be the handler!
You're right about making sure a company behaves responsibly in society and communities, but I just don't see how restricting your choice of apps down to a measly few hundred thousand is being socially irresponsible? It is after all just a consumer electronics device that YOU chose to pick up and use.
Society and communities are usually governed by laws and rules. There has to be some form of control, otherwise there is no society. If everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, society would not exist. Boundaries are outlined and marked; this is what you can do, this is what you can't do. These simple rules define and make up society. So on one hand you're all for "society" and on the other you object to Apple governing its own products and store?
To think that corporations are the dog and you're the master is way too idealistic. If ALL a company was interested in is in making money, then yes, this would be true. However, if a company is genuinely interested in building the best products they think they can make, then they tend to try and make them regardless of how their customers feel about it or even asking their customers what they think about it.
And apparently the co-founder of wikipedia (the philosopher not the one selling porn via their website, that's Jimbo Wales) agrees on the sad state of affairs at wikipedia:
Quote:
Two weeks after the launch of Citizendium, Sanger criticized Wikipedia, stating the latter was "broken beyond repair," and had a range of problems "from serious management problems, to an often dysfunctional community, to frequently unreliable content, and to a whole series of scandals."[88] Sanger stated in part:
The work of the Wikipedians has astounded the world, but the amateur nature of Wikipedia's contributions, whose authors remain anonymous, is not for everyone. Some experts are hostile toward the idea of Wikipedia and many avoid Wikipedia altogether. We may take Wikipedia as an early prototype of the application of open source hacker principles to content rather than code. I want to argue that it is just that, an early prototype, rather than a mature model of how such principles should be applied to reference, scholarly and educational content. Where Wikipedia shares the culture of anonymity found in the broader Internet, the Citizendium will have a culture of real-world, personal responsibility.[89]
Citizendium has a form of peer-review, in which the site's content is subject to "gentle expert oversight."[90][91][92] In reference to creating a new encyclopedia project Sanger stated: "I think there is a need for a more reliable and free [online] encyclopedia. If we can create a more reliable and free encyclopedia, particularly if we adopt a different system than Wikipedia's, then we should."[22] As Citizendium's editor-in-chief, Sanger commented in late October 2007 about its first anniversary, from its initial private launch date of October 30, 2006.[42][93] Citizendium's readers, he said, have only just begun to see the power of the project's model:[94]
Quote:
I think we absolutely need another wiki—first of all, simply because Wikipedia lacks credibility, unfortunately. It's a good starting place, as people say—on some subjects anyway—but it isn't really what we want out of a reliable reference resource. And frankly, I don't think that the Wikipedia community is prepared to make the changes that I think need to be made in order to transform Wikipedia into something that's really reliable.[98]
Citizendium is wiki-based, and several aspects set it apart from Wikipedia.[99][100][101] Prospective contributors on Citizendium are required to sign in using real names.[102][103] Users of Wikipedia may contribute anonymously, or create a username. This username does not necessarily have a connection with their real name.[104][105] Experts in their field of expertise have a role in the Citizendium community to approve articles on the basis of accuracy.[87] The Good Article and the Featured Article systems on Wikipedia employs a review by editors.[106] Wikipedia is perceived to promote consensus and not truth[107] and verifiability is the inclusion criteria – reporting on what other sources have to say.[108] Citizendium experts have the final say for article content[81][109] and it is not necessary to cite a source for a content decision on Citizendium.[110] Citizendium attempts to prevent future wiki-vandalism in the tradition of Stephen Colbert.[92]
Comments
Let's see... projects launched by Jimmy Wales:
Nupedia -- failure.
Openserving -- failure.
Search Wikia -- failure.
CiviliNation -- failure.
Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia, so we'll credit him with its success.
Somebody remind us, why are we listening to what Jimmy Wales thinks?
Excellent question. I agree.
BlackBerry doesn't have as many cult members, thus won't sell as many tablets.
Don't follow what you're saying here: that Galaxy sales are > 1M?
If so, I'd love to see a cite.
What rock have you been living under?? They sold over 1M by the beginning of December.... they are probably at 2M by now with the holiday season and all.
What rock have you been living under?? They sold over 1M by the beginning of December.... they are probably at 2M by now with the holiday season and all.
Cite, or shut.
Oh I should add: (i) tech writers telling me that "Samsung says 1 million sold" does not cut it; they could very well have shipped 1 million, and it's all sitting there in the distribution channel, but not sold it; (ii) I'd like to see a cite for an official Samsung press release, e.g., from their website.
Of course BlackBerry won't sell as many Playbooks as Apple sold iPads. If Apple took cow turds and threw an apple logo on them and branded them iTurds, about 3 millions Apple followers would buy them in the first two months.
BlackBerry doesn't have as many cult members, thus won't sell as many tablets.
Ever wondered why Apple has a loyal following? Perhaps it's because they make excellent products ...
Does Jimmy Wales have some personal agenda here?
Yes, funding for Wikipedia -- i.e., his salary.
Macs have always been treated as second-class citizens in the retail world. Go into ANY computer store and check out the Mac software titles. There are VERY few. So where is a non-geek user to go?
Typical Mac users (not us here) may have a tough time finding applications they may need. Most don't know about and/or won't spend time digging around MacUpdate or VersionTracker or scouring web sites searching for apps or comparisons of titles. Never mind simply downloading and trying things out.
Remember, there are loads of Windows converts who have been taught to FEAR their computers and especially downloading, installing and deleting things at will. For them, that's a dumb and dangerous thing to do!
We longtime Mac users are quite spoiled in that regard.
For us it's: Hunt. Download. Install. Try. Pay for it or Trash it. Or just use it. Simple.
There's a fairly large and diverse number of third-party Mac developers who have written some excellent Mac software over the years. For them, having an Apple approved (safe) place to display and sell their wares is good for them, users and Apple. Win. Win. Win.
So, in that regard, the App Store will be a godsend not only for users, but also for developers.
What rock have you been living under?? They sold over 1M by the beginning of December.... they are probably at 2M by now with the holiday season and all.
And how many of those were returned?
I bet those numbers won't leak out.
Wikipedia's ok for casual info, but in terms of anything that matters it's full of lies, misinformation, and petty "editors" with an agenda putting it across over other users who might be more impartial and better informed but who don't have the time to devote and can't handle the fascist way wikipedia is run by blocks of editors with vested interests, who expurgate, whitewash and push their views across. And all that anonymously, and all that favoring some schmucks who for some strange reason seem to have too much time on their hands (maybe by virtue of getting pocket money from elsewhere for their editing and not needing to work...) to be online 24/7 dominating discussions, locking topics, reverting edits based on technicalities, and not letting anyone else's but their own views to be put across.
Back when I didn't know any better I tried suggesting an edit to an article only to hear arguments such as "we have already reached a consensus on this one in the talk page", and you go to the talk page and the same 5-6 people who think the article is their pet or their back yard, having reached a "consensus". And lo and behold if you try to raise a point, because as per wiki policies editors should be civil and assume good will, which translates to being self entitled and being bullies to anyone trying to modify what these precious few policing their articles as hawks have said.
That's freedom of information and knowledge courtesy of Jimbo Wales!
They should have hired professional editors, people who are qualified, and who would be accountable for what they write, and who'd write eponymously. These are the ones who should be responsible for the general management of the content, not some unknowns, who are unaccountable, and are curiously spending all their lives in wikipedia with no compensation what so ever (well not evident to any of the users at least...) But they don't care to clean up the mess.
How strange then that this guy talks about danger and freedoms, seemingly oblivious of the fact of what his site is doing for freedom and objectivity. It's not surprising that he used to run an adult oriented, quasi porn, quasi gambling website before wikipedia, he's brought the same ethos along to wikipedia. And now all of a sudden it's apple's fault for helping (finally!) developers actually make some profit off of their creations with the app stores, instead of good old pc paradigm of having people just steal their work.
Another bozo, joining the ranks of bozos who are on apple's case just because these days bad mouthing apple gives you easy publicity.
Wikipedia's ok for casual info, but in terms of anything that matters it's full of lies, misinformation, and petty "editors" with an agenda putting it across over other users who might be more impartial and better informed but who don't have the time to devote and can't handle the fascist way wikipedia is run by blocks of editors with vested interests, who expurgate, whitewash and push their views across.
How strange then that this guy talks about danger and freedoms, seemingly oblivious of the fact of what his site is doing for freedom and objectivity.
Watch Fox News much?
That might come into his thinking, who knows? It's an interesting thought, but it's false. No, here's the thing:
Malls, and WALMART, destroy that localized economy. The mom and pop stores have to shut, they can't compete with the big box retailers or the new developments full of entertainment in the suburbs. And mom and pop can't afford to move out of the little store they have had for fifty years in order to rent space in a premium area. Their business dies.
Is that what the App Store is doing? No, quite the opposite. So, we have a few less unsophisticated websites to visit and trawl through looking for apps. Does that restrict the landscape of the net in the same way malls kill the town center? The only similarity is that "everything is in one place".
Rather, small-time developers can now compete with software houses that could afford to have high-profile websites and shelf space in physical stores and costly and sophisticated methods of distribution. The terms, benefits, exposure and services provided by the App Store are great for... small developers (the mom and pop shops of the internet landscape). And the consumer. The App Store levels the landscape, disproportionately helping the small developer who wouldn't be able to distribute internationally otherwise. The developer can concentrate on his product and have it delivered without being a website designer or businessman. More win-wins with this scenario.
"Fewer traffic to smaller independent software houses."? No, far more business for these smaller houses. Just read the success stories of independent, one-man houses who are getting the exposure and downloads and revenue of the big boys. Am I going to go find some crappy website that I read about on some geeky blog somewhere; and work out what to do to get my purchase downloaded and installed and working; and worry about the security of their payment processing; what about the worry that I may end up getting a pirate copy instead of paying the developer for the real thing? No, I'm just going to fire up the App Store app and put money directly into the small developer's pocket.
+1
This IS required reading by all naysayers and bashers of the App Store!
Watch Fox News much?
Au contraire mon frere. And I 'd appreciate it if next time you replied to my arguments.
Cite, or shut.
Oh I should add: (i) tech writers telling me that "Samsung says 1 million sold" does not cut it; they could very well have shipped 1 million, and it's all sitting there in the distribution channel, but not sold it; (ii) I'd like to see a cite for an official Samsung press release, e.g., from their website.
Yes you SHOULD add.... all you have to do it do a Google search of "galaxy tab sells million" and TONS of tech sites have it listed as early December. No idea if Samsung has it on their site or not.
Yes you SHOULD add.... all you have to do it do a Google search of "galaxy tab sells million" and TONS of tech sites have it listed as early December. No idea if Samsung has it on their site or not.
Your response is Exhibit A for why Wikipedia has an authenticity issue too.
Go do some real work now, such as peddling Galaxy Tabs.
Don't follow what you're saying here: that Galaxy sales are > 1M?
If so, I'd love to see a cite.
It’s been stated as such. The PlayBook looks to be much more appealing in many ways so I expect it to fly past the Tab. It also shows that conumers now want tablets and 7” tablets at that… even if they are pretty shitty. PS: I have a feeling many of these Tab owners have buyer’s remorse, much like netbook owners.
Watch Fox News much?
Are you that uninformed that you think Fox News has anything to do with it?
Fox is as full of crap as CNN, and round and round it goes.
All an informed individual has to do is search certain topics on Wiki to fully appreciate the disinformation campaign being run through that website. As I posted before, it holds exactly 50% irrefutable fact, and 50% complete bs lies.
Is Steve Jobs spooning you right now? Here is an idea, Freedom of Choice! Allow third party OTA installations without asking for Papa's permission, warn the user of the danger but let the user choose! Its a mobile computing platform just like a Apple Macintosh not a toaster.
So I dont buy it? I'll go to google where I have more installation freedom but they will mine all my personal data to exploit me in the future. Maybe I'll check out WP7, ohh wait they are doing both.
God your the customer, pretend for once like your in the drivers seat, looking after your own self interest and demanding progress instead of running PR for Apple.
Choice #1:
You as a consumer can choose which phone to buy
Choice #2:
You as a consumer have the choice of installing any application from the AppStore
Choice #3:
You as the owner of an iOS device have the choice of doing what you want with it, including jailbreaking it or throwing it against the wall.
Not a Choice:
What you cannot choose to do is tell Apple how to run their business or how they're going to make/design their own products. They make a product, you either like it or you don't. It's really that simple. And I'm not just defending Apple here, I'm defending anyone's desire and ability to create something.
You can't go to a car dealership and expect a car with three wheels.
You can't go to Best Buy and expect that they sell computers with 5 1/4 floppy drives.
You can't expect H.264 support in FireFox from Mozilla.
You can't expect Verizon to remove pre-installed crap ware from their phones.
You can't go to an art gallery and expect that a piece of art be modified more to your liking.
Just because you can "Have it Your Way" at Burger King doesn't mean McDonald's is going to listen to your demands as well.
Sorry, but even companies have the "Freedom of Choice!"... the freedom to make a product anyway they want and present it the consumer and leave it up to them to decide if they want to buy it or not.
"Freedom of Choice" does not mean there must be different choices. It means the freedom to choose when there is a choice. Your freedom of choice does not give you the right to force someone else to do it your way, which would be to take away their freedom of choice.
The AppStore only exists because Apple decided to open up development on the iPhone. How about Apple chooses to shut it down? What it make you happier if you didn't have any choices at all? 6 million original iPhones were sold with zero app choices other than what came on the device.
How about Apple chooses to discontinue all iOS devices? Would having one less smart phone choice make you happier? It would definitely give one less thing to complain about.
What I don't understand is people's sense of entitlement... Someone creates something. It didn't exist before, now it exists. Instead of letting other people enjoy this thing, there are people who feel "gipped" because it wasn't created in a way that makes sense to them, so instead of just letting those people who do enjoy it have it, these people feel they need to protest until it is changed to something more in agreement with their sensibilities. They could move on and continue to look for something else that might be better for them, but apparently they'd rather spend their time being disgruntled and complain about it.
Its up to us to mold the construct of how the corporation behaves in our society, its the dog and has its purpose but we are supposed to be the handler!
You're right about making sure a company behaves responsibly in society and communities, but I just don't see how restricting your choice of apps down to a measly few hundred thousand is being socially irresponsible? It is after all just a consumer electronics device that YOU chose to pick up and use.
Society and communities are usually governed by laws and rules. There has to be some form of control, otherwise there is no society. If everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, society would not exist. Boundaries are outlined and marked; this is what you can do, this is what you can't do. These simple rules define and make up society. So on one hand you're all for "society" and on the other you object to Apple governing its own products and store?
To think that corporations are the dog and you're the master is way too idealistic. If ALL a company was interested in is in making money, then yes, this would be true. However, if a company is genuinely interested in building the best products they think they can make, then they tend to try and make them regardless of how their customers feel about it or even asking their customers what they think about it.
Two weeks after the launch of Citizendium, Sanger criticized Wikipedia, stating the latter was "broken beyond repair," and had a range of problems "from serious management problems, to an often dysfunctional community, to frequently unreliable content, and to a whole series of scandals."[88] Sanger stated in part:
The work of the Wikipedians has astounded the world, but the amateur nature of Wikipedia's contributions, whose authors remain anonymous, is not for everyone. Some experts are hostile toward the idea of Wikipedia and many avoid Wikipedia altogether. We may take Wikipedia as an early prototype of the application of open source hacker principles to content rather than code. I want to argue that it is just that, an early prototype, rather than a mature model of how such principles should be applied to reference, scholarly and educational content. Where Wikipedia shares the culture of anonymity found in the broader Internet, the Citizendium will have a culture of real-world, personal responsibility.[89]
Citizendium has a form of peer-review, in which the site's content is subject to "gentle expert oversight."[90][91][92] In reference to creating a new encyclopedia project Sanger stated: "I think there is a need for a more reliable and free [online] encyclopedia. If we can create a more reliable and free encyclopedia, particularly if we adopt a different system than Wikipedia's, then we should."[22] As Citizendium's editor-in-chief, Sanger commented in late October 2007 about its first anniversary, from its initial private launch date of October 30, 2006.[42][93] Citizendium's readers, he said, have only just begun to see the power of the project's model:[94]
I think we absolutely need another wiki—first of all, simply because Wikipedia lacks credibility, unfortunately. It's a good starting place, as people say—on some subjects anyway—but it isn't really what we want out of a reliable reference resource. And frankly, I don't think that the Wikipedia community is prepared to make the changes that I think need to be made in order to transform Wikipedia into something that's really reliable.[98]
Citizendium is wiki-based, and several aspects set it apart from Wikipedia.[99][100][101] Prospective contributors on Citizendium are required to sign in using real names.[102][103] Users of Wikipedia may contribute anonymously, or create a username. This username does not necessarily have a connection with their real name.[104][105] Experts in their field of expertise have a role in the Citizendium community to approve articles on the basis of accuracy.[87] The Good Article and the Featured Article systems on Wikipedia employs a review by editors.[106] Wikipedia is perceived to promote consensus and not truth[107] and verifiability is the inclusion criteria – reporting on what other sources have to say.[108] Citizendium experts have the final say for article content[81][109] and it is not necessary to cite a source for a content decision on Citizendium.[110] Citizendium attempts to prevent future wiki-vandalism in the tradition of Stephen Colbert.[92]