Nothing wrong with it. Just seems like putting the cart before the horse.
And I don't see how well it will work in any case. One platform sure. But what type of hardware should developers be developing for? QWERTY? Touch? Phone pad? Seems like a developer's nightmare not knowing what kind of device you are writing code for.
You develop, both in parallel, and when ready you do a marketing blitz on their impending deployments.
Now, thankfully for Google, they hired people who design UIs for OS X to develop those UIs for their iPhone applications.
This Interface is really odd. It kind of reminds me of a lightweight X11 Window Server/UI desktop environment.
You mean, the developers knew there are no other rules than that Apple makes up all the rules on the spot. That's true and I agree that no one should force Apple to sell anything they don't want to sell. However, in choosing to censor and pre-screen content, Apple becomes morally responsible for said content. They are going to have to watch their ass because of that choice. Assuming Google truly doesn't block any apps, they won't have this problem - they'll just provide the platform and get out of the way.
What makes the whole thing suck hard for both developers and users is that there is no competition to Apple's store (because Apple doesn't allow there to be, duh). This is totally unlike the comparisons to webhosts and regular stores. If the first store you walk into only sells creation-compatible history books, you can try the competitors. Now it's Apple's morals or nothing. That doesn't make for a healthy computing platform, and not one I want to buy into.
Let's take the term "store" to a higher level: I own a business and decide to offer a certain product or service wich makes me a "store" for such product/service. I have (and should have in a free economy) the right to sell any product/service that is legal as well as any add-on products/services. As the "store" owner, it is my choice what I want to sell - if I make the wrong judgement and do not offer the right products/services, customers will not come. Likewise, if I make it unattractive for suppliers to provide my "store" the main or ancilliary products/services, suppliers will decide that it is not worth it and move on. Everyone is free to use a product/service as well as supply such product/service as long as it is legal. As an iphone buyer, I have no rights to demand a certain app on the phone unless it was promised at the time of purchase. As a developer, I have no rights to demand that the store owner sells my product. I know, in the case of the iphone, the fact that there are no other outlets to sell the apps is not a pleasant proposition for the developers but they knew of the risk before spending their time and money.
It?s great news that Google is planning to deliver a market for mobile software with its own centralized ?Android Market.? It should give Apple?s iPhone Apps Store competitive pressure to continue to innovate, and provide a safety net for smartphone users if Apple fails to deliver progress fast enough. If Apple and Google both fail, users will be stuck with the failed third party software models related to Microsoft?s Windows Mobile and Nokia?s Symbian...
I feel the App Store, alongside the unofficial jailbroken Apps [eg. Cydia and Installer] cover the ground well enough. The iPhone 3G will not fail in this respect. Very, very unlikely to fail.
Considering the App Store and jailbroken Apps, for the most part, Windows Mobile and even Symbian don't even come close to the quality, power and potential of these apps & the app environment.
Unless Google brings it's A+++ game, Android will remain in Beta. That's the difference between Google and Apple... One has very open-testing style R&D, while Apple's is very closed R&D.
I doubt you're going to get anything. That poster has said similar a few times before without bothering to back up what they're saying or explain when asked.
I doubt you're going to get anything. That poster has said similar a few times before without bothering to back up what they're saying or explain when asked.
On other posts, you asserted that Google was copying devices, OSs and business models when it's not true. Google's version of an app store is more of a mall than a store, but in your rush to charge things as black and white, you just say it's a copy. Apple isn't even the first to make an app store for mobile devices.
Google saw something that worked and they copied it. might not be an *exact* copy of what Apple (and other companies btw) is doing but it is similar. Hey, nothing wrong with that. if i own a company and i only got 1 cash cow, i'd be doing the same thing.
Comments
Nothing wrong with it. Just seems like putting the cart before the horse.
And I don't see how well it will work in any case. One platform sure. But what type of hardware should developers be developing for? QWERTY? Touch? Phone pad? Seems like a developer's nightmare not knowing what kind of device you are writing code for.
You develop, both in parallel, and when ready you do a marketing blitz on their impending deployments.
Now, thankfully for Google, they hired people who design UIs for OS X to develop those UIs for their iPhone applications.
This Interface is really odd. It kind of reminds me of a lightweight X11 Window Server/UI desktop environment.
You mean, the developers knew there are no other rules than that Apple makes up all the rules on the spot. That's true and I agree that no one should force Apple to sell anything they don't want to sell. However, in choosing to censor and pre-screen content, Apple becomes morally responsible for said content. They are going to have to watch their ass because of that choice. Assuming Google truly doesn't block any apps, they won't have this problem - they'll just provide the platform and get out of the way.
What makes the whole thing suck hard for both developers and users is that there is no competition to Apple's store (because Apple doesn't allow there to be, duh). This is totally unlike the comparisons to webhosts and regular stores. If the first store you walk into only sells creation-compatible history books, you can try the competitors. Now it's Apple's morals or nothing. That doesn't make for a healthy computing platform, and not one I want to buy into.
Let's take the term "store" to a higher level: I own a business and decide to offer a certain product or service wich makes me a "store" for such product/service. I have (and should have in a free economy) the right to sell any product/service that is legal as well as any add-on products/services. As the "store" owner, it is my choice what I want to sell - if I make the wrong judgement and do not offer the right products/services, customers will not come. Likewise, if I make it unattractive for suppliers to provide my "store" the main or ancilliary products/services, suppliers will decide that it is not worth it and move on. Everyone is free to use a product/service as well as supply such product/service as long as it is legal. As an iphone buyer, I have no rights to demand a certain app on the phone unless it was promised at the time of purchase. As a developer, I have no rights to demand that the store owner sells my product. I know, in the case of the iphone, the fact that there are no other outlets to sell the apps is not a pleasant proposition for the developers but they knew of the risk before spending their time and money.
It?s great news that Google is planning to deliver a market for mobile software with its own centralized ?Android Market.? It should give Apple?s iPhone Apps Store competitive pressure to continue to innovate, and provide a safety net for smartphone users if Apple fails to deliver progress fast enough. If Apple and Google both fail, users will be stuck with the failed third party software models related to Microsoft?s Windows Mobile and Nokia?s Symbian...
I feel the App Store, alongside the unofficial jailbroken Apps [eg. Cydia and Installer] cover the ground well enough. The iPhone 3G will not fail in this respect. Very, very unlikely to fail.
Considering the App Store and jailbroken Apps, for the most part, Windows Mobile and even Symbian don't even come close to the quality, power and potential of these apps & the app environment.
Unless Google brings it's A+++ game, Android will remain in Beta. That's the difference between Google and Apple... One has very open-testing style R&D, while Apple's is very closed R&D.
Android Market is just another wannabe App Store.
Why, what would you suggest they do?
Why, what would you suggest they do?
I doubt you're going to get anything. That poster has said similar a few times before without bothering to back up what they're saying or explain when asked.
I doubt you're going to get anything. That poster has said similar a few times before without bothering to back up what they're saying or explain when asked.
what is there to explain?
what is there to explain?
On other posts, you asserted that Google was copying devices, OSs and business models when it's not true. Google's version of an app store is more of a mall than a store, but in your rush to charge things as black and white, you just say it's a copy. Apple isn't even the first to make an app store for mobile devices.