Probably the best example of his strategic prowess is the "The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry."
You are also ignoring how the article was only looking at the short term results from the original iphone launch.
Revenue sharing failed. iPhone copycat outsold the original iPhone. European carriers saddled with excess inventory a month after that wired.com article. Handset subsidy killed the full priced iphone business model.
Totally disagree. Jobs is probably one of the greatest strategist of all time.
He developed the strategy first. Then he had the product designed and created, and then put the necessary action in place to make it successful.
Probably the best example of his strategic prowess is the "The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry."
Or the strategy for first Apple PC or the strategy for the first commercial GUI PC or buying Pixar for $10M from Lucas or the iPod or the... There really are a great many things to choose from. I understand the "he was in the right place at the right time" and the "he was mostly lucky" comments, but when you are in the right place at the right time over and over again, especially when you aren't first into a market, like with the iPod and iPhone. But when it happens over and over again you can't help but think that it's strategy to put yourself in the right place at the right time and to see the how you can exploit it.
Although "syphon" (as used in the article's headline) is an acceptable variant, isn't "siphon" a more commonly used spelling?... one that would make the headline more acceptable to be jumped on by wire services?
Also, the article refers to "jailbreaking" without explaining what it means. If you're going to insist on using the phrase "Cupertino-based" for every dang article, you may as well try to offer an explainer for the viewing public when you toss out these geek terms.
Apple's hardware has only 10% market share, but steady profits. Microsoft, on the other hand, has 87% of the market and just laid off several thousands of people (and then tried to screw them out of cash) because its model is too dependent on market trends.
See this often. Comparing Apple's HW to MS' OS marketshare. If we compare Apple to other HW vendors, we have Apple at 10%, with Dell at 20% and HP at 25%. That isn't bad at all, consider that Apple's average sale is not even close to the $400 notebooks that Dell and HP sell in droves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
You are also ignoring how the article was only looking at the short term results from the original iphone launch.
Revenue sharing failed.
You are right that it didn't work in many countries, but AT&T wanted to continue it. Apple had to extend their contract with them in order to change it. It was an experiment and I doubt Apple thought it was going to work out completely, but it was good to have done it. With the carriers having so much control over what how phones are designed it's not hard to see how Apple was able to come into an established market quickly becoming the de facto and creating sweeping changes just from existing.
I am curious how this plays well with the GPL. Since apt (the package manager that Cydia uses) is published under the GPL, you can use it so long as you don't charge money for the software that you create with it. If you do charge money, you need to negotiate your terms with the Free Software Foundation.
Please. The music business was not gutted. Some argue that it has actually increased sales. Not to mention forced the biz to reconsider how it offers its product; otherwise the iTunes Music Store may never have been.
If you compare how much music was being sold in the late 90s to today, you'd have to agree that the conventional market for music being sold to consumers was gutted. While iTunes has become quite popular, it is still a fraction of the size of the CD market, and does not make up for the massive losses in sales, not to mention the lack of any growth, in music sales to consumers over the past decade.
It is pointless to talk about the market without actually addressing the numbers involved. It's a matter of fact, not opinion.
Whenever you're forced to fall back on "some say," you are probably leaving fact land to support your premise with conjecture. "Some say" the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, and that humans don't have any effect on climate change so full speed ahead with "clean coal."
You are also ignoring how the article was only looking at the short term results from the original iphone launch.
Revenue sharing failed. iPhone copycat outsold the original iPhone. European carriers saddled with excess inventory a month after that wired.com article. Handset subsidy killed the full priced iphone business model.
Nothing's changed with the wireless industry.
No. It is you that has short term thinking.
Apple's success is even more profound when one considers that it achieves it on its own. Invariably, it fights the status quo. Not just one adversary but a whole host of them at the same time. Including ignorant or jealous bloggers. How else can one one explain such unfounded, unsupported rhetoric?
I wonder how long Apple can keep up its integrated way of offering services.
Which market are you talking about?
The number of people that want to jailbreak their phone & want Apple to let them worry about whether the apps they run are spyware or malware is a tiny minority.
The vast majority of us want a phone that is extremely stable & easy to use. We want a store where we never have to worry about what we are downloading & how safe it is. And for those of us who are parents we don't want to end up in a parent teacher conference about how our child was caught distributing a porn app for the iPhone.
Seriously people, you've gone so far off the path of logic it's a wonder how you get by in this world.
I personally don't want to live in a nanny state, and I don't want my computer or OS to be a nanny over what I do. I'm happy to have a bit more risk in my life in order not to have cameras and checkpoints on every corner, and I'm happy to put up with a bit more risk of malware in order to have freedom in my iPhone -- which by now, is much more than a phone to me. My Mac gets by perfectly nicely without Apple controlling every bit of software I can run, and I see no reason why my iPhone can't do the same; and if it does get infected with something, so be it, it's on my head. I don't care if many people would prefer a nanny state or a nanny OS -- it's not the right thing to do in either case.
Also, arguments like the following are pretty weak: "However, Apple isn't censoring speech by limiting what software it chooses to sell in its store or on its platform, any more than it is censoring speech by not stocking porn mags and political tracts in its retail outlets." It's not censoring speech, it's censoring behavior: it's saying that, in the world of my phone, I can't do anything without Apple's approval. And for that matter, why do you think it would be wrong for Apple to censor what web sites I go to on the iPhone? The logic seems identical: I can always go to the web site on some other browser; if it were declared policy by Apple, and I agreed to it when buying the phone, what right to I have to complain; many web sites are unsuitable for children or might contain web apps that compete with Apple or contain malware; etc. Yet I presume you would object to Apple blocking all websites unless explicitly approved by Apple. Why is that?
But who needs complex analogies to speech or governments? Such top-down control is not right for my personal computer, and it's not right for my mini-computer.
I personally don't want to live in a nanny state, and I don't want my computer or OS to be a nanny over what I do. I'm happy to have a bit more risk in my life in order not to have cameras and checkpoints on every corner, and I'm happy to put up with a bit more risk of malware in order to have freedom in my iPhone -- which by now, is much more than a phone to me. My Mac gets by perfectly nicely without Apple controlling every bit of software I can run, and I see no reason why my iPhone can't do the same; and if it does get infected with something, so be it, it's on my head. I don't care if many people would prefer a nanny state or a nanny OS -- it's not the right thing to do in either case.
Also, arguments like the following are pretty weak: "However, Apple isn't censoring speech by limiting what software it chooses to sell in its store or on its platform, any more than it is censoring speech by not stocking porn mags and political tracts in its retail outlets." It's not censoring speech, it's censoring behavior: it's saying that, in the world of my phone, I can't do anything without Apple's approval. And for that matter, why do you think it would be wrong for Apple to censor what web sites I go to on the iPhone? The logic seems identical: I can always go to the web site on some other browser; if it were declared policy by Apple, and I agreed to it when buying the phone, what right to I have to complain; many web sites are unsuitable for children or might contain web apps that compete with Apple or contain malware; etc. Yet I presume you would object to Apple blocking all websites unless explicitly approved by Apple. Why is that?
But who needs complex analogies to speech or governments? Such top-down control is not right for my personal computer, and it's not right for my mini-computer.
A very typical selfish view of the situation, it is all I I I, no thought for anyone else.
Apple have to think about everyone and make sure that they are all safe and free from issues without them having to take the risks you don't care about. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Apple have every right to decide what THEY sell through THEIR store as it is THEIR reputation that would be at risk. I can see the headlines now - APPLE SELLS PORN, APPLE SELL VIRUS LADEN SOFTWARE, APPLE SELL RACIST SOFTWARE. Apple is not protecting us, they are protecting themselves.
If you don't like the model then fuck off and sell your iPhone, no one forced you to buy it.
Booo, jailbreakers are lamos! I support the movement of jail breaking to try something out with the iPhone such as software development or so that you can use it in other country just in case but I totally against "legalizing" jailbreaking. Its just the same as hackintosh except for different name. These people should end up in jail instead.
Seriously people, you've gone so far off the path of logic it's a wonder how you get by in this world.
This world you really think these people reside in This world?
Remember these people can't differentiate between plausible speculation & reality nor tokenism & normality. They were never in This world or, more accurately, they left it some time ago.
I certainly don't see the collapse of the Mac form as being attributable too giving users and developers too much access to their own hardware. After all, IBM and Microsoft never seriously restricted much of anything and they won a vastly larger market with an inferior platform.
Here's the basic fact that makes this all clear: Apple sold far more computers than IBM.
Apple sold more units because they had a better platform. But Apple was the *only* player selling the platform and it's lonely at the top. And much like a lonely mountain climber, a lonely platform developer is unlikely to succeed.
Apple had better software and (actually) better marketing than anyone. But if your marketing is twice as good as anyone else's, but EVERYONE else is selling a PC, you're still the odd man out.
Unfortunately, Apple is repeating its, frankly stupid, mistake. The iPhone is undoubtedly better than the G1, but Google's Android platform (while not open) at least lets user install what they want, from whom they want. And if you're willing to fork over $400 up front, you can get a G1 directly from Google complete with root password and the ability to reflash the thing; with permission from Google.
Just like they did in the 80s, Apple will sell more units than HTC, Nokia, Samsung, or any of the other hardware vendors. But those hardware vendors will have little choice but to use Google software, so in aggregate, Google will win and the iPhone will die.
Steve Jobs is a better designer than a strategist. As long as Apple presumes to be able to control anything, they will always do well with innovative products and lose their advantage when their product is poorly copied by a company that understands the software world as it really exists.
It's true to say that Apple's market strategy flies in the face of the incumbent social doctrine and your arguments extend to more than just computing products - NEC/Toshiba won the the VCR wars using the choice gambit. Why then didn't PlaysForSure unseat iPod?
Market incumbency must be a factor. Apple was thwarted by a serious management error in the '80s maybe the world was more gullible then. Android will prove, just as PlaysForSure did, that openness doesn't seem as appealing now as it did back then (the advantages are hypothetical and the disadvantages all too real) and will only reinforce Apple's position.
As for SJ being a poor strategist, maybe he is. He was always asking us a question that many are only now beginning to understand. Society is changing, people realise their choices are orchestrated and therefore aren't theirs so better to have them well orchestrated than not. Maybe he just had his timing wrong.
I am curious how this plays well with the GPL. Since apt (the package manager that Cydia uses) is published under the GPL, you can use it so long as you don't charge money for the software that you create with it. If you do charge money, you need to negotiate your terms with the Free Software Foundation.
I haven't see this brought up yet, but it seems like quite a sticking point.
You might want to try reading what you post, as in the second paragraph, "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price."
You can absolutely charge money for "free" software under GPL. "Free" under the Free Software Foundation's license means that the source code is freely available, which was an issue under Apple's iPhone developer agreements for a while (but I believe has been resolved).
Speaking as a mobile developer, the current SDK restrictions make it hard to develop anything past games and shovelware. The company I work for has had an application rejected from the app store and we seriously considered releasing it via other means. Would we sell it via Cydia? Possibly but I'd imagine that the target audience would be pretty small. As it stands, we'd rather develop for other platforms.
Charlie Wolf's comments are laughable. Cydia is neither the home of offensive apps nor the home of malware and trojans.
I have no problem with people hacking their iPhones and loading them up with under-the-counter apps. Just accept the negative consequences of your actions, namely, Apple fighting back.
Unfortunately, Apple is repeating its, frankly stupid, mistake. The iPhone is undoubtedly better than the G1, but Google's Android platform (while not open) at least lets user install what they want, from whom they want. And if you're willing to fork over $400 up front, you can get a G1 directly from Google complete with root password and the ability to reflash the thing; with permission from Google.
Just like they did in the 80s, Apple will sell more units than HTC, Nokia, Samsung, or any of the other hardware vendors. But those hardware vendors will have little choice but to use Google software, so in aggregate, Google will win and the iPhone will die.
Steve Jobs is a better designer than a strategist. As long as Apple presumes to be able to control anything, they will always do well with innovative products and lose their advantage when their product is poorly copied by a company that understands the software world as it really exists.
And I don't see how you can analogize Apple's strategy with the iPhone to their early failures with the Mac. Are you related to Roger McNamee? In the short term, Apple is crushing everyone else in the wireless market. Will they be able to do that over the long term? Who knows? As long as they continue to develop a better alternative to other mobile O/S's out there, they can remain a dominant player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
*yawn*
Yet another indication that Apple is scared s***less about competition. They can't take any hit to their bottom line, so they attack anything that tries to compete.
Sounds like Apple took a page right out of Microsoft's playbook.
To couch it in your terms, whatever. Do you even understand what you're talking about? Competition is one thing; violating the DMCA by reverse engineering the OS is another. Love them or hate them for it, they have delivered a game-changing mobile handset, and are doing what they feel is necessary to protect their IP. The hackers & script kiddies who jailbreak and steal apps likely wouldn't buy those apps in the first place. I have buddies making comfortable six-figure salaries who NEVER buy anything they can't steal, because fundamentally they're still sociopathic adolescents. If app developers lose widespread confidence that they can sell their apps in the App Store, that will damage Apple's position in the wireless market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CU10
Market forces are driving this I believe.
I wonder how long Apple can keep up its integrated way of offering services.
As long as they keep delivering a product people want.
This article reads more like fear mongering, and less like a factual representation of what jailbreaking really is.
Yes it unlocks your phone to 3rd party developers, but it does not = piracy.
For example, jailbreaking was out before the app store, if it's purpose was to pirate software, what software would it be pirating. The original reason to jailbreak was to get any 3rd party applications at all. then apple realized that was a good idea, and now we have the app store.
The jailbreaking community is mostly utilized to install applications that apple won't allow you to install via the app store. for example, I've purchased pda net for tethering my phone to my laptop. I'm still restricted to the same 5GB cap everyone is is limited to, so why can't I use my 5GB how I see fit? I also purchased a program that allows for quick smsing. it is ridiculously faster then the stock sms app, and it allows for forwarding, and a landscape keyboard. But I believe the number one reason people jailbreak is the ablity to skin, or theme your phone to look different.
While I won't argue the merits of the stock iphone look, especially compared to some of the garbage themes available out there, some themes are rather complete and look very nice. This program (winterboard) allows you to theme your phone by, change the icons and background, getting up to 5 icons in the dock, changing the battery indicator, and even has the ability to make the weather icon actually display the current weather. To be able to unlock the phone, and see the temp without loading the weather application saves time, and is a glaring omission from the way it works out of the box. It also has plug ins to tap to unlock instead of slide to unlock, hide the icons apple forces you to have (stocks, notes, contacts etc.), and plenty more functionality that I haven't experienced.
Oh, did I mention I can copy and paste now?
All in all, jailbreaking is useful for reasons other then pirating. All the talk of the phone running slower, or not being as stable, or filing up with spyware, I've never seen anything like that. I've used programs that crash occasionally, but no more frequently then apps downloaded from the appstore, or safari itself... if that's a problem, I'll just delete the program, as I would with any buggy software
To show jailbreaking in such a harsh light is uninformed, and reminds me of fox news, pushing an agenda instead of reporting facts.
Comments
Probably the best example of his strategic prowess is the "The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry."
You are also ignoring how the article was only looking at the short term results from the original iphone launch.
Revenue sharing failed. iPhone copycat outsold the original iPhone. European carriers saddled with excess inventory a month after that wired.com article. Handset subsidy killed the full priced iphone business model.
Nothing's changed with the wireless industry.
Totally disagree. Jobs is probably one of the greatest strategist of all time.
He developed the strategy first. Then he had the product designed and created, and then put the necessary action in place to make it successful.
Probably the best example of his strategic prowess is the "The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry."
Or the strategy for first Apple PC or the strategy for the first commercial GUI PC or buying Pixar for $10M from Lucas or the iPod or the... There really are a great many things to choose from. I understand the "he was in the right place at the right time" and the "he was mostly lucky" comments, but when you are in the right place at the right time over and over again, especially when you aren't first into a market, like with the iPod and iPhone. But when it happens over and over again you can't help but think that it's strategy to put yourself in the right place at the right time and to see the how you can exploit it.
Also, the article refers to "jailbreaking" without explaining what it means. If you're going to insist on using the phrase "Cupertino-based" for every dang article, you may as well try to offer an explainer for the viewing public when you toss out these geek terms.
Apple's hardware has only 10% market share, but steady profits. Microsoft, on the other hand, has 87% of the market and just laid off several thousands of people (and then tried to screw them out of cash) because its model is too dependent on market trends.
See this often. Comparing Apple's HW to MS' OS marketshare. If we compare Apple to other HW vendors, we have Apple at 10%, with Dell at 20% and HP at 25%. That isn't bad at all, consider that Apple's average sale is not even close to the $400 notebooks that Dell and HP sell in droves.
You are also ignoring how the article was only looking at the short term results from the original iphone launch.
Revenue sharing failed.
You are right that it didn't work in many countries, but AT&T wanted to continue it. Apple had to extend their contract with them in order to change it. It was an experiment and I doubt Apple thought it was going to work out completely, but it was good to have done it. With the carriers having so much control over what how phones are designed it's not hard to see how Apple was able to come into an established market quickly becoming the de facto and creating sweeping changes just from existing.
Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
I haven't see this brought up yet, but it seems like quite a sticking point.
Please. The music business was not gutted. Some argue that it has actually increased sales. Not to mention forced the biz to reconsider how it offers its product; otherwise the iTunes Music Store may never have been.
If you compare how much music was being sold in the late 90s to today, you'd have to agree that the conventional market for music being sold to consumers was gutted. While iTunes has become quite popular, it is still a fraction of the size of the CD market, and does not make up for the massive losses in sales, not to mention the lack of any growth, in music sales to consumers over the past decade.
It is pointless to talk about the market without actually addressing the numbers involved. It's a matter of fact, not opinion.
Whenever you're forced to fall back on "some say," you are probably leaving fact land to support your premise with conjecture. "Some say" the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, and that humans don't have any effect on climate change so full speed ahead with "clean coal."
You are also ignoring how the article was only looking at the short term results from the original iphone launch.
Revenue sharing failed. iPhone copycat outsold the original iPhone. European carriers saddled with excess inventory a month after that wired.com article. Handset subsidy killed the full priced iphone business model.
Nothing's changed with the wireless industry.
No. It is you that has short term thinking.
Apple's success is even more profound when one considers that it achieves it on its own. Invariably, it fights the status quo. Not just one adversary but a whole host of them at the same time. Including ignorant or jealous bloggers. How else can one one explain such unfounded, unsupported rhetoric?
But Apple's is a good model too--and we users (not just Apple) have seen the benefits of it.
Does anyone really think both models shouldn't exist? I'm happy to have the Apple option out there to choose from.
Market forces are driving this I believe.
I wonder how long Apple can keep up its integrated way of offering services.
Which market are you talking about?
The number of people that want to jailbreak their phone & want Apple to let them worry about whether the apps they run are spyware or malware is a tiny minority.
The vast majority of us want a phone that is extremely stable & easy to use. We want a store where we never have to worry about what we are downloading & how safe it is. And for those of us who are parents we don't want to end up in a parent teacher conference about how our child was caught distributing a porn app for the iPhone.
Seriously people, you've gone so far off the path of logic it's a wonder how you get by in this world.
Also, arguments like the following are pretty weak: "However, Apple isn't censoring speech by limiting what software it chooses to sell in its store or on its platform, any more than it is censoring speech by not stocking porn mags and political tracts in its retail outlets." It's not censoring speech, it's censoring behavior: it's saying that, in the world of my phone, I can't do anything without Apple's approval. And for that matter, why do you think it would be wrong for Apple to censor what web sites I go to on the iPhone? The logic seems identical: I can always go to the web site on some other browser; if it were declared policy by Apple, and I agreed to it when buying the phone, what right to I have to complain; many web sites are unsuitable for children or might contain web apps that compete with Apple or contain malware; etc. Yet I presume you would object to Apple blocking all websites unless explicitly approved by Apple. Why is that?
But who needs complex analogies to speech or governments? Such top-down control is not right for my personal computer, and it's not right for my mini-computer.
Where are users who want such things having their rights violated?
I personally don't want to live in a nanny state, and I don't want my computer or OS to be a nanny over what I do. I'm happy to have a bit more risk in my life in order not to have cameras and checkpoints on every corner, and I'm happy to put up with a bit more risk of malware in order to have freedom in my iPhone -- which by now, is much more than a phone to me. My Mac gets by perfectly nicely without Apple controlling every bit of software I can run, and I see no reason why my iPhone can't do the same; and if it does get infected with something, so be it, it's on my head. I don't care if many people would prefer a nanny state or a nanny OS -- it's not the right thing to do in either case.
Also, arguments like the following are pretty weak: "However, Apple isn't censoring speech by limiting what software it chooses to sell in its store or on its platform, any more than it is censoring speech by not stocking porn mags and political tracts in its retail outlets." It's not censoring speech, it's censoring behavior: it's saying that, in the world of my phone, I can't do anything without Apple's approval. And for that matter, why do you think it would be wrong for Apple to censor what web sites I go to on the iPhone? The logic seems identical: I can always go to the web site on some other browser; if it were declared policy by Apple, and I agreed to it when buying the phone, what right to I have to complain; many web sites are unsuitable for children or might contain web apps that compete with Apple or contain malware; etc. Yet I presume you would object to Apple blocking all websites unless explicitly approved by Apple. Why is that?
But who needs complex analogies to speech or governments? Such top-down control is not right for my personal computer, and it's not right for my mini-computer.
A very typical selfish view of the situation, it is all I I I, no thought for anyone else.
Apple have to think about everyone and make sure that they are all safe and free from issues without them having to take the risks you don't care about. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Apple have every right to decide what THEY sell through THEIR store as it is THEIR reputation that would be at risk. I can see the headlines now - APPLE SELLS PORN, APPLE SELL VIRUS LADEN SOFTWARE, APPLE SELL RACIST SOFTWARE. Apple is not protecting us, they are protecting themselves.
If you don't like the model then fuck off and sell your iPhone, no one forced you to buy it.
Seriously people, you've gone so far off the path of logic it's a wonder how you get by in this world.
This world you really think these people reside in This world?
Remember these people can't differentiate between plausible speculation & reality nor tokenism & normality. They were never in This world or, more accurately, they left it some time ago.
McD
I certainly don't see the collapse of the Mac form as being attributable too giving users and developers too much access to their own hardware. After all, IBM and Microsoft never seriously restricted much of anything and they won a vastly larger market with an inferior platform.
Here's the basic fact that makes this all clear: Apple sold far more computers than IBM.
Apple sold more units because they had a better platform. But Apple was the *only* player selling the platform and it's lonely at the top. And much like a lonely mountain climber, a lonely platform developer is unlikely to succeed.
Apple had better software and (actually) better marketing than anyone. But if your marketing is twice as good as anyone else's, but EVERYONE else is selling a PC, you're still the odd man out.
Unfortunately, Apple is repeating its, frankly stupid, mistake. The iPhone is undoubtedly better than the G1, but Google's Android platform (while not open) at least lets user install what they want, from whom they want. And if you're willing to fork over $400 up front, you can get a G1 directly from Google complete with root password and the ability to reflash the thing; with permission from Google.
Just like they did in the 80s, Apple will sell more units than HTC, Nokia, Samsung, or any of the other hardware vendors. But those hardware vendors will have little choice but to use Google software, so in aggregate, Google will win and the iPhone will die.
Steve Jobs is a better designer than a strategist. As long as Apple presumes to be able to control anything, they will always do well with innovative products and lose their advantage when their product is poorly copied by a company that understands the software world as it really exists.
It's true to say that Apple's market strategy flies in the face of the incumbent social doctrine and your arguments extend to more than just computing products - NEC/Toshiba won the the VCR wars using the choice gambit. Why then didn't PlaysForSure unseat iPod?
Market incumbency must be a factor. Apple was thwarted by a serious management error in the '80s maybe the world was more gullible then. Android will prove, just as PlaysForSure did, that openness doesn't seem as appealing now as it did back then (the advantages are hypothetical and the disadvantages all too real) and will only reinforce Apple's position.
As for SJ being a poor strategist, maybe he is. He was always asking us a question that many are only now beginning to understand. Society is changing, people realise their choices are orchestrated and therefore aren't theirs so better to have them well orchestrated than not. Maybe he just had his timing wrong.
McD
I am curious how this plays well with the GPL. Since apt (the package manager that Cydia uses) is published under the GPL, you can use it so long as you don't charge money for the software that you create with it. If you do charge money, you need to negotiate your terms with the Free Software Foundation.
Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
I haven't see this brought up yet, but it seems like quite a sticking point.
You might want to try reading what you post, as in the second paragraph, "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price."
You can absolutely charge money for "free" software under GPL. "Free" under the Free Software Foundation's license means that the source code is freely available, which was an issue under Apple's iPhone developer agreements for a while (but I believe has been resolved).
Charlie Wolf's comments are laughable. Cydia is neither the home of offensive apps nor the home of malware and trojans.
Unfortunately, Apple is repeating its, frankly stupid, mistake. The iPhone is undoubtedly better than the G1, but Google's Android platform (while not open) at least lets user install what they want, from whom they want. And if you're willing to fork over $400 up front, you can get a G1 directly from Google complete with root password and the ability to reflash the thing; with permission from Google.
Just like they did in the 80s, Apple will sell more units than HTC, Nokia, Samsung, or any of the other hardware vendors. But those hardware vendors will have little choice but to use Google software, so in aggregate, Google will win and the iPhone will die.
Steve Jobs is a better designer than a strategist. As long as Apple presumes to be able to control anything, they will always do well with innovative products and lose their advantage when their product is poorly copied by a company that understands the software world as it really exists.
And I don't see how you can analogize Apple's strategy with the iPhone to their early failures with the Mac. Are you related to Roger McNamee? In the short term, Apple is crushing everyone else in the wireless market. Will they be able to do that over the long term? Who knows? As long as they continue to develop a better alternative to other mobile O/S's out there, they can remain a dominant player.
*yawn*
Yet another indication that Apple is scared s***less about competition. They can't take any hit to their bottom line, so they attack anything that tries to compete.
Sounds like Apple took a page right out of Microsoft's playbook.
To couch it in your terms, whatever. Do you even understand what you're talking about? Competition is one thing; violating the DMCA by reverse engineering the OS is another. Love them or hate them for it, they have delivered a game-changing mobile handset, and are doing what they feel is necessary to protect their IP. The hackers & script kiddies who jailbreak and steal apps likely wouldn't buy those apps in the first place. I have buddies making comfortable six-figure salaries who NEVER buy anything they can't steal, because fundamentally they're still sociopathic adolescents. If app developers lose widespread confidence that they can sell their apps in the App Store, that will damage Apple's position in the wireless market.
Market forces are driving this I believe.
I wonder how long Apple can keep up its integrated way of offering services.
As long as they keep delivering a product people want.
Yes it unlocks your phone to 3rd party developers, but it does not = piracy.
For example, jailbreaking was out before the app store, if it's purpose was to pirate software, what software would it be pirating. The original reason to jailbreak was to get any 3rd party applications at all. then apple realized that was a good idea, and now we have the app store.
The jailbreaking community is mostly utilized to install applications that apple won't allow you to install via the app store. for example, I've purchased pda net for tethering my phone to my laptop. I'm still restricted to the same 5GB cap everyone is is limited to, so why can't I use my 5GB how I see fit? I also purchased a program that allows for quick smsing. it is ridiculously faster then the stock sms app, and it allows for forwarding, and a landscape keyboard. But I believe the number one reason people jailbreak is the ablity to skin, or theme your phone to look different.
While I won't argue the merits of the stock iphone look, especially compared to some of the garbage themes available out there, some themes are rather complete and look very nice. This program (winterboard) allows you to theme your phone by, change the icons and background, getting up to 5 icons in the dock, changing the battery indicator, and even has the ability to make the weather icon actually display the current weather. To be able to unlock the phone, and see the temp without loading the weather application saves time, and is a glaring omission from the way it works out of the box. It also has plug ins to tap to unlock instead of slide to unlock, hide the icons apple forces you to have (stocks, notes, contacts etc.), and plenty more functionality that I haven't experienced.
Oh, did I mention I can copy and paste now?
All in all, jailbreaking is useful for reasons other then pirating. All the talk of the phone running slower, or not being as stable, or filing up with spyware, I've never seen anything like that. I've used programs that crash occasionally, but no more frequently then apps downloaded from the appstore, or safari itself... if that's a problem, I'll just delete the program, as I would with any buggy software
To show jailbreaking in such a harsh light is uninformed, and reminds me of fox news, pushing an agenda instead of reporting facts.