Excellent point! Best post on this thread subtopic!
Actually the situation is far worse for wikipedia, because there the moderators are self appointed, unpaid, and do not have to declare conflicting interests in their editing/moderating of content, while app store apple employees are constantly being evaluated on how well they do their job, they are paid employees (and thus professionals and not "hobbyists"), and have to have their interests clearly aligned towards, the quality, integrity and user experience of the app store.
Yes I think it's ridiculous how many PhDs are contributing. Wales must make it possible for illiterate people, people in comas and children under the age of five to contribute as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard
Jimmy Wales is on crack these days. How does increasing the diversity of contributors to Wikipedia make it more accurate, which is the only thing that should matter about it?
I think his elephant in this room is not PhD's (tho' many are stuck in the rarified atmosphere of academia and lack of interaction with "the folks"), rather the relative lack of input by the 53% of the pop which is female.
However, that's NOT because there's any "pink ceiling" on WikiP, and even I, with my mere Masters' have found myself free to post. As is anyone. So get on it, gals if you want more "womyn's input in our digital herstory."
On the other hand, people on missions (like Wales) often get caught up in their own bubbles of righteousness. So there is some unintended hilarity in his sound-off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
I don't. They are probably saying 1 million, because the cost is going to be higher than that of the iPad or the Android competition.
Everything I have read sounds like they are going to target executive customers and this just adds another nail into that coffin.
A lot of what I've read said there's a surprising focus on social networking and media software - features generally targeted at consumers and sometimes loathed by employers who don't want to be paying folks to play Farmville and watch stupid pet (or Lindsay Lohan) tricks.
It's also totally a break with all RIM software to date - since their own attempts at touch smart phones have not been quite up to snuff - and was developed out of house by I think Qnx (sp?)(?) - so no guarantee there'll be mass migration by their own base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lav1daloca
I agree with wikipedia founder 100%, the App Store is dangerous because it's the only place one can legitimately download a program on their "pocket" computer. We would be outraged if the PC at home would have the same practice, so why doesn't that apply to our small "pocket" computer from Apple?
I'm not against Apple's App Store, I just think it shouldn't be the only place where we can install a program in the iPhone.
I would go as far as say that it's unlawful what Apple is practicing and should be respectively punished just like Microsoft was punished in the EU for their practices with the internet browser.
dunno about unlawful, but the EU does have a very socialist view of law, so could happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parsec
If desktop computers end up with locked down app stores then he would have a point but there is no sign of that happening. I happen to think the model suits devices like the iPhone and xbox/ps3 because they are dedicated devices not general purpose computers, and we don't want to end up running anti-virus/spyware software on them.
If you don't recognize that mobile devices are the next gen of "general purpose computers" for most people, you're not paying attention. I already know many folks for whom their phone IS their only computer, and that trend's only gonna increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor
I appreciate the App Store because I like the idea of apps being filtered and moderated to a certain extent. Just look at the mess that the "open Internet" has created for desktop operating systems in the last 30 years... it's a mess. The App Store is a clean, vetted source of apps, quality or otherwise. At least I know I won't have to wade through crap masquerading as legitimate products, like all of those "camera and printer driver" websites out there.
A little review reading leaves me with few problems in choosing quality apps from various download sites. If the Mac app store remains open, no prob. If they ever try to make it the only source, I'm decidedly not down.
And if Apple can be a little relaxed about not stomping on jailbreakers, guess I can live with the iOS version too. But in my opinion they'll suffer if they don't eventually cut the tether to wired access via iTunes, again because many pocket computer users aren't even going to own a PC to wire into.
Does Jimmy think app stores like Xbox Live Marketplace and Amazon Kindle stores should not be curated?
Should Walmart.com and Buy.com not be curated?
And while we're at it, why can't I purchase a hydrogen bomb from Wal-Mart? I'm a tax paying American and I have the right to bear arms! Like Jimmy, I want my "Internet Freedom"!
What Jimmy fails to understand is that you do own the device, but you don't own the service. He objects to curated app store services on the grounds that "we own the device". Huh? That's like saying, I own my PC, therefore, Walmart.com has no right to curate what they offer for sale on their online store.
Jimmy should pull his head out of his ass once in a while.
I think his elephant in this room is not PhD's (tho' many are stuck in the rarified atmosphere of academia and lack of interaction with "the folks"), rather the relative lack of input by the 53% of the pop which is female.
However, that's NOT because there's any "pink ceiling" on WikiP, and even I, with my mere Masters' have found myself free to post. As is anyone. So get on it, gals if you want more "womyn's input in our digital herstory."
Yeah, well women are a tad more emotionally mature than 26 year old geek males, to know better not to get involved in food fights, turf wars, and petty squabbling of wikipedia "editors" out to dominate their respective articles with their view points. It's not because women don't get it that they don't contribute to the mess that is wikipedia, it's because they do.
Well I'm pretty sure it's illegal what Apple practices, but because the governments are so damn corporate-friendly they led this slide.
When you buy Apple's product then it's your product, you give money in exchange for an iPhone, that makes it your device which you can do whatever you want with it. Having it locked from Apple so you can't install 3rd party programs from 3rd party venues is illegal because Apple is restricting you from using your device however you want.
That's like buying a PC from HP and you would only be able to install programs from an HP virtual store. Apple goes even further, it won't allow a program unless it's been approved by them.. hellooo? Doesn't anyone see how illegal this is???
The fact that they demand a premium price for the device isn't enough, they need to get a share of the revenues from applications which are programmed by third parties which Apple had no investment whatsoever. They are making money off of enslaved developers and the only ones profiting off of apps is mostly Apple. That's 21st century slavery!
If this doesn't smell like an international class-action lawsuit then i don't know what is.
You mean like buying a PS3 and only being allowed to install PS3 licensed software? Or Buying a PS2 and only allowed to install PS2 licensed software? Or buying an XBox and only being able to use XBox licensed software? Or buying a a Tivo and only being allowed to use the Tivo software? Or buying a Dreamcast and only being allowed to use Sega licensed software? In every case every one of those licenses are getting a 15-30% retail cut subtracted from the developers wholesale price!!! (Except Tivo where everyone else is just plain prohibited from playing.) But not contributing anything else other than the permission to run on the box. At least Apple is providing the whole distribution channel on only 30% from retail which is at least double the percentage return any of the above vendors could hope for.
Your example and logic are totally misguided. The concept is called a vertical market, and as long as the vertical market maker is not doing certain illegal tactics to prevent other vertical markets from operating in the same area it is all quite explicitly legal. The fact Android is successful and shipping about the same number of phones market-wide illustrates Apple hasn't illegally controlled the horizontal market via lockout with their vertical iOS market.
Go find a bit more sophisticated economic model to replace your purely ideological one.
Everly's treatment of dark themes, such as the frank discussion of necrophilia in their hit "Wake Up, Little Susie," led them to receive the nickname "fraternal godfathers of heavy metal."[15]
Yeah, well women are a tad more emotionally mature than 26 year old geek males, to know better not to get involved in food fights, turf wars, and petty squabbling of wikipedia "editors" out to dominate their respective articles with their view points. It's not because women don't get it that they don't contribute to the mess that is wikipedia, it's because they do.
None of my edits have ever been contested and no food fights either.
This happens mostly when the subject is living famous people, politics or religion, not when it's on historical or technical topics. Wikipedia is vast and the last independent study I saw said it's on the whole as accurate or more accurate than any comparable source.
So not that I doubt there's plenty of web-office politics in an enterprise of this scope -based on high-sounding principles, but run by mere hairless apes, but I call "red herring" on your take that "women know better" than to contribute to the largest single repository of info on the planet because of process issues.
This Jimmy Wales story is very bizarre. First the original iPhone didn't have any apps and Jobs tells developers to use open web standards to build apps on the web. He gets roundly attacked by the usual suspects. Bowing to pressure Apple develops an SDK and opens up to apps. But the whole thing is a new experience and Apple aren't sure what's going to happen so the decide to invigilate this app store in case things get out of hand and give the end-user a bad experience. Then Apple gets attacked for not letting in chaos, oops, because they're not open. Now Wales attacks Apple for putting an "app chokepoint" on the web which may well damage the open web. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Then Wales says that Net Neutrality isn't that big an issue because its mostly a theoretical worry and not it's not a current reality. Hang on, didn't he just criticise Apple because their App Store policy MIGHT cause problems for the future web? Isn't that the same argument as the "theoretical worry" about the effect of the change to Net Neutrality?
Perhaps there will be a cheaper, non-camera enabled version of the iPad, hence the three versions?
I could see that. They could leave the 16gb wifi as is for kids, schools, businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IlikeAppel
It's about to get even worse- Apple has told newspaper and magazine publishers that all subscriptions have to be sold through the App Store.
ALLEGEDLY
No one has produced anything to document these claims.
As for the whole Playbook thing. It doesn't matter how many they produce. What matters is how many they sell. And we shall see if they see 1 million is year, much less quarter or month
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Jimmy has invested his life in a website, so the rise of non-web based Internet platforms is a threat to him.
Wikipedia is often great for a first look to get an overview of the establishment point of view. Obviously there are conflicting viewpoints on many matters and how those are treated frames the picture. As usual anything that conflicts with the bankers point of view in a serious way gets removed or overwhelmed such as the global warming issue, opposing voices get erased. Not completely though, just enough remains to give the semblance of neutrality, independence and so it ends up as controlled opposition.
The only way to guarantee winning is to control both sides.
It is clear why Wales would attack Apple, think different, oops, can't have that!
Speaking in a "purely personal capacity" at an event in Bristol, England, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said app stores like Apple's iOS App Store can act as a "chokepoint that is very dangerous."
It is time to ask if the model was "a threat to a diverse and open ecosystem," Wales continued. "We own [a] device, and we should control it."
Oh, please. If I buy a KitchenAid mixer, am I really supposed to be offended that only KitchenAid attachments work on it? Is that a "very dangerous" kitchen neutrality chokepoint?
Quote:
During the speech, Wales also highlighted a lack of diversity among contributors to Wikipedia, which will celebrate its 10th anniversary on Saturday. 87 percent of contributors are male, with an average age of 26, and twice as likely to have PhDs as the general population. Wales hopes to improve the site's diversity by simplifying Wikipedia's editing system.
So would he prefer that uneducated, technically unsavvy people contribute? I don't know about the gender split, but it seems that PhD-earning 20-somethings aren't so bad to have helping you out.
Comments
Excellent point! Best post on this thread subtopic!
Actually the situation is far worse for wikipedia, because there the moderators are self appointed, unpaid, and do not have to declare conflicting interests in their editing/moderating of content, while app store apple employees are constantly being evaluated on how well they do their job, they are paid employees (and thus professionals and not "hobbyists"), and have to have their interests clearly aligned towards, the quality, integrity and user experience of the app store.
Yes I think it's ridiculous how many PhDs are contributing. Wales must make it possible for illiterate people, people in comas and children under the age of five to contribute as well.
Jimmy Wales is on crack these days. How does increasing the diversity of contributors to Wikipedia make it more accurate, which is the only thing that should matter about it?
I think his elephant in this room is not PhD's (tho' many are stuck in the rarified atmosphere of academia and lack of interaction with "the folks"), rather the relative lack of input by the 53% of the pop which is female.
However, that's NOT because there's any "pink ceiling" on WikiP, and even I, with my mere Masters' have found myself free to post. As is anyone. So get on it, gals if you want more "womyn's input in our digital herstory."
On the other hand, people on missions (like Wales) often get caught up in their own bubbles of righteousness. So there is some unintended hilarity in his sound-off.
I don't. They are probably saying 1 million, because the cost is going to be higher than that of the iPad or the Android competition.
Everything I have read sounds like they are going to target executive customers and this just adds another nail into that coffin.
A lot of what I've read said there's a surprising focus on social networking and media software - features generally targeted at consumers and sometimes loathed by employers who don't want to be paying folks to play Farmville and watch stupid pet (or Lindsay Lohan) tricks.
It's also totally a break with all RIM software to date - since their own attempts at touch smart phones have not been quite up to snuff - and was developed out of house by I think Qnx (sp?)(?) - so no guarantee there'll be mass migration by their own base.
I agree with wikipedia founder 100%, the App Store is dangerous because it's the only place one can legitimately download a program on their "pocket" computer. We would be outraged if the PC at home would have the same practice, so why doesn't that apply to our small "pocket" computer from Apple?
I'm not against Apple's App Store, I just think it shouldn't be the only place where we can install a program in the iPhone.
I would go as far as say that it's unlawful what Apple is practicing and should be respectively punished just like Microsoft was punished in the EU for their practices with the internet browser.
dunno about unlawful, but the EU does have a very socialist view of law, so could happen.
If desktop computers end up with locked down app stores then he would have a point but there is no sign of that happening. I happen to think the model suits devices like the iPhone and xbox/ps3 because they are dedicated devices not general purpose computers, and we don't want to end up running anti-virus/spyware software on them.
If you don't recognize that mobile devices are the next gen of "general purpose computers" for most people, you're not paying attention. I already know many folks for whom their phone IS their only computer, and that trend's only gonna increase.
I appreciate the App Store because I like the idea of apps being filtered and moderated to a certain extent. Just look at the mess that the "open Internet" has created for desktop operating systems in the last 30 years... it's a mess. The App Store is a clean, vetted source of apps, quality or otherwise. At least I know I won't have to wade through crap masquerading as legitimate products, like all of those "camera and printer driver" websites out there.
A little review reading leaves me with few problems in choosing quality apps from various download sites. If the Mac app store remains open, no prob. If they ever try to make it the only source, I'm decidedly not down.
And if Apple can be a little relaxed about not stomping on jailbreakers, guess I can live with the iOS version too. But in my opinion they'll suffer if they don't eventually cut the tether to wired access via iTunes, again because many pocket computer users aren't even going to own a PC to wire into.
Does Jimmy think app stores like Xbox Live Marketplace and Amazon Kindle stores should not be curated?
Should Walmart.com and Buy.com not be curated?
And while we're at it, why can't I purchase a hydrogen bomb from Wal-Mart? I'm a tax paying American and I have the right to bear arms! Like Jimmy, I want my "Internet Freedom"!
What Jimmy fails to understand is that you do own the device, but you don't own the service. He objects to curated app store services on the grounds that "we own the device". Huh? That's like saying, I own my PC, therefore, Walmart.com has no right to curate what they offer for sale on their online store.
Jimmy should pull his head out of his ass once in a while.
We are Mac users. We laugh at danger. We live without virus protection. We do not need no stinking protection from the App Store.
We have the strength of tens because our hearts are pure!
I think his elephant in this room is not PhD's (tho' many are stuck in the rarified atmosphere of academia and lack of interaction with "the folks"), rather the relative lack of input by the 53% of the pop which is female.
However, that's NOT because there's any "pink ceiling" on WikiP, and even I, with my mere Masters' have found myself free to post. As is anyone. So get on it, gals if you want more "womyn's input in our digital herstory."
Yeah, well women are a tad more emotionally mature than 26 year old geek males, to know better not to get involved in food fights, turf wars, and petty squabbling of wikipedia "editors" out to dominate their respective articles with their view points. It's not because women don't get it that they don't contribute to the mess that is wikipedia, it's because they do.
Well I'm pretty sure it's illegal what Apple practices, but because the governments are so damn corporate-friendly they led this slide.
When you buy Apple's product then it's your product, you give money in exchange for an iPhone, that makes it your device which you can do whatever you want with it. Having it locked from Apple so you can't install 3rd party programs from 3rd party venues is illegal because Apple is restricting you from using your device however you want.
That's like buying a PC from HP and you would only be able to install programs from an HP virtual store. Apple goes even further, it won't allow a program unless it's been approved by them.. hellooo? Doesn't anyone see how illegal this is???
The fact that they demand a premium price for the device isn't enough, they need to get a share of the revenues from applications which are programmed by third parties which Apple had no investment whatsoever. They are making money off of enslaved developers and the only ones profiting off of apps is mostly Apple. That's 21st century slavery!
If this doesn't smell like an international class-action lawsuit then i don't know what is.
You mean like buying a PS3 and only being allowed to install PS3 licensed software? Or Buying a PS2 and only allowed to install PS2 licensed software? Or buying an XBox and only being able to use XBox licensed software? Or buying a a Tivo and only being allowed to use the Tivo software? Or buying a Dreamcast and only being allowed to use Sega licensed software? In every case every one of those licenses are getting a 15-30% retail cut subtracted from the developers wholesale price!!! (Except Tivo where everyone else is just plain prohibited from playing.) But not contributing anything else other than the permission to run on the box. At least Apple is providing the whole distribution channel on only 30% from retail which is at least double the percentage return any of the above vendors could hope for.
Your example and logic are totally misguided. The concept is called a vertical market, and as long as the vertical market maker is not doing certain illegal tactics to prevent other vertical markets from operating in the same area it is all quite explicitly legal. The fact Android is successful and shipping about the same number of phones market-wide illustrates Apple hasn't illegally controlled the horizontal market via lockout with their vertical iOS market.
Go find a bit more sophisticated economic model to replace your purely ideological one.
Well, yes, but it's about necrophilia if you play it backwards.
.... Isn't that sodomy?
.... Isn't that sodomy?
That depends on the laws in your state.
The Wikipedia page for that song says nothing of the sort:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_Up_Little_Susie
If you're hellbent on FUDding Wikipedia there are far more plausible examples you could write.
Actually, you should check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Everly_Brothers
Everly's treatment of dark themes, such as the frank discussion of necrophilia in their hit "Wake Up, Little Susie," led them to receive the nickname "fraternal godfathers of heavy metal."[15]
That depends on the laws in your state.
I am in California...
We don't have [enforced] laws...
We have regulations...
Anything goes -- that is approved by the self-appointed moderators of the public good.
Referring to lav1daloca btw
Full article:
The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1
Yeah, well women are a tad more emotionally mature than 26 year old geek males, to know better not to get involved in food fights, turf wars, and petty squabbling of wikipedia "editors" out to dominate their respective articles with their view points. It's not because women don't get it that they don't contribute to the mess that is wikipedia, it's because they do.
None of my edits have ever been contested and no food fights either.
This happens mostly when the subject is living famous people, politics or religion, not when it's on historical or technical topics. Wikipedia is vast and the last independent study I saw said it's on the whole as accurate or more accurate than any comparable source.
So not that I doubt there's plenty of web-office politics in an enterprise of this scope -based on high-sounding principles, but run by mere hairless apes, but I call "red herring" on your take that "women know better" than to contribute to the largest single repository of info on the planet because of process issues.
Then Wales says that Net Neutrality isn't that big an issue because its mostly a theoretical worry and not it's not a current reality. Hang on, didn't he just criticise Apple because their App Store policy MIGHT cause problems for the future web? Isn't that the same argument as the "theoretical worry" about the effect of the change to Net Neutrality?
Perhaps there will be a cheaper, non-camera enabled version of the iPad, hence the three versions?
I could see that. They could leave the 16gb wifi as is for kids, schools, businesses.
It's about to get even worse- Apple has told newspaper and magazine publishers that all subscriptions have to be sold through the App Store.
ALLEGEDLY
No one has produced anything to document these claims.
As for the whole Playbook thing. It doesn't matter how many they produce. What matters is how many they sell. And we shall see if they see 1 million is year, much less quarter or month
The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Jimmy has invested his life in a website, so the rise of non-web based Internet platforms is a threat to him.
The only way to guarantee winning is to control both sides.
It is clear why Wales would attack Apple, think different, oops, can't have that!
Speaking in a "purely personal capacity" at an event in Bristol, England, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said app stores like Apple's iOS App Store can act as a "chokepoint that is very dangerous."
It is time to ask if the model was "a threat to a diverse and open ecosystem," Wales continued. "We own [a] device, and we should control it."
Oh, please. If I buy a KitchenAid mixer, am I really supposed to be offended that only KitchenAid attachments work on it? Is that a "very dangerous" kitchen neutrality chokepoint?
During the speech, Wales also highlighted a lack of diversity among contributors to Wikipedia, which will celebrate its 10th anniversary on Saturday. 87 percent of contributors are male, with an average age of 26, and twice as likely to have PhDs as the general population. Wales hopes to improve the site's diversity by simplifying Wikipedia's editing system.
So would he prefer that uneducated, technically unsavvy people contribute? I don't know about the gender split, but it seems that PhD-earning 20-somethings aren't so bad to have helping you out.