No, I wouldn't, but I'd rather have a "benevolent dictator" than anarchy, any day. Where's the "democracy" option? There's no way the average app store buyer can discern whether an app is potentially malicious or not, so Democracy on an individual basis is not an option in this case.
How about giving the customers what they want and not telling the customers what they should want? That would be a start. Tell me, does the lack of an App Store for your Mac make it a horrible, anarchic marketplace to choose software for it? Has it rendered your Mac useless? Oh woe is me! Apple doesn't pre-approve every application for the Mac! I have to, horrors of horrors, choose for myself! And has this made Macs unwieldy? Bug ridden? Useless? Why not the same for the iPhone OS?
Let the developers fulfill users' demands without going through a middleman, especially one with conflicting interests.
?My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple?s policies.? ? Joe Hewitt
Facebook developer Joe Hewitt, the man behind the immensely popular Facebook application for iPhone, has just tweeted that he?s done with the project:
?Time for me to try something new. I?ve handed the Facebook iPhone app off to another engineer, and I?m onto a new project.?
We reached out to Hewitt for more details, and he attributed his decision to quit the project entirely on Apple?s tyrannical App Store approval policies:
My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple?s policies. I respect their right to manage their platform however they want, however I am philosophically opposed to the existence of their review process. I am very concerned that they are setting a horrible precedent for other software platforms, and soon gatekeepers will start infesting the lives of every software developer.
The web is still unrestricted and free, and so I am returning to my roots as a web developer. In the long term, I would like to be able to say that I helped to make the web the best mobile platform available, rather than being part of the transition to a world where every developer must go through a middleman to get their software in the hands of users.?
Tell me, does the lack of an App Store for your Mac make it a horrible, anarchic marketplace to choose software for it? Has it rendered your Mac useless?[/url]
The Mac under OS X, not so much, thanks to the security of the operating system. Windows? Absofuckinglutely.
Yeah, sure, the iPhone OS has probably been designed with security in mind, just like Mac OS X has, but I am even more secure under the iPhone OS than under Mac, knowing that it's absolutely impossible for phishing, data mining, botneting and otherwise malicious apps to get through (except for jailbreakers). If you want an open iPhone OS and you're savvy enough to keep it secure (is there a "little snitch" for iPhone?), then go ahead and do so. I'll stick with the App Store, TYVM.
If there's no "Little Snitch" for jailbroken iPhone, how do you know one of your apps isn't logging your passwords and bank account numbers and sending them somewhere?
How about giving the customers what they want and not telling the customers what they should want? That would be a start. Tell me, does the lack of an App Store for your Mac make it a horrible, anarchic marketplace to choose software for it? Has it rendered your Mac useless? Oh woe is me! Apple doesn't pre-approve every application for the Mac! I have to, horrors of horrors, choose for myself! And has this made Macs unwieldy? Bug ridden? Useless? Why not the same for the iPhone OS?
Let the developers fulfill users' demands without going through a middleman, especially one with conflicting interests.
The issue is that different customers have different wants. And quite often, those wants are at odds with each other. In other words, Apple can only satisfy one of two groups of people.
Specifically, most consumers prefer a device where they don't have to worry about malicious software. They also want to be able find, download, install, and delete apps in the easiest manner possible. The vast majority of people want an appliance-like phone.
Catering to this group unfortunately means that people, such as yourself, don't get the product they want. You would prefer to have a completely open platform that can be customized to no end, and for which software can be installed in a manner up to each developer. This results in a powerful tool for those who feel inclined to use and administer the more complicated device.
One might argue that optional features wouldn't ruin the experience for those who prefer an appliance-like phone. After all, they're optional features, just don't use them. Well in the real world, when the capability is there, people will invariably use it, no matter whether they have the skillset needed to use it effectively. The end result would be the majority of people having a worse experience using the phone.
The iPhone platform would be completely different if the app store didn't function as a middle-man. It would be a confusing mess of potentially bad software. With the app store, average users are installing, enjoying, and using more applications on their phones, by average, than on their home computers. It only takes one minute to learn how to use the app store. Users quickly understand that they don't need to worry about anything. They can install or uninstall anything they want without fear.
Opening up other app-delivery methods would have resulted in the following scenario: Aunt Jenny sends your mom a link to an a weather-bug app. The weather-bug app is installed, having never been vetted, and proceeds to muck up your mom's iPhone.
That isn't to say that this model is best for all platforms or all users. Just that it has worked out to the majority's benefit this time around. Even as a full-fledged computer and gadget geek, I've grown quite fond of how robust and simple the iPhone is, even with its 140000 apps.
The good news is that the pocket computer (smart phone) market is highly competitive. Numerous cash-rich multi-national corporations are spending hundreds of millions on R&D and are continuously releasing new and competitive products. Everyone has a choice. If the locked model doesn't work for you, choose something else. Now if one company starts to achieve a monopoly, then the managed-app-delivery model could become a net-bad. As of right now though, the dictator is benevolent.
Incidentally, the above reasoning, even if not agreed with, is what motivated Apple to prohibit 3rd party background processing at this time. (What most people are refering to as multi-tasking)
Catering to this group unfortunately means that people, such as yourself, don't get the product they want. You would prefer to have a completely open platform that can be customized to no end, and for which software can be installed in a manner up to each developer. This results in a powerful tool for those who feel inclined to use and administer the more complicated device.
There are of course many "open" products like this on the market. You can install what you want from where you want.
The trouble is that these devices perform less well in the market. Developers (and by developers I mean people who want to make software to generate revenue) are less attracted to these less successful platforms.
And consequently there is less good software available.
The short version is, platforms with fewer restrictions, end up restricting your choice.
Just a question... how many tablet optimized applications exist for other tablet devices? How many tablet optimized browsers? How many tablet optimized chat apps? How many tablet optimized media apps? How many tablet optimized eBook readers? How many tablet optimized note-taking apps? How many tablet optimized games have there been? Perhaps if Microsoft were a bit better organized, they would have written their own versions of all of the above for Win tablet devices.
Apple is providing all of the above with the iPad, plus allowing all of the existing iPhone apps that will work great. That's one thing they're doing right that their competitors just didn't get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
There are of course many "open" products like this on the market. You can install what you want from where you want.
The trouble is that these devices perform less well in the market. Developers (and by developers I mean people who want to make software to generate revenue) are less attracted to these less successful platforms.
And consequently there is less good software available.
The short version is, platforms with fewer restrictions, end up restricting your choice.
People love to make wild, unsubstantiated claims about how all the apps in the App Store are fart apps, or useless little widgets, or public domain ebooks, or whatever.
Such people obviously have an agenda beyond saying anything pertinent about the App Store, since statistics on the actual distribution of app types are easy to come by.
I realize the iPad isn't out yet so there aren't any concrete answers to these questions, but between all of the hands-on materials I thought maybe someone somewhere has some insight:
1. Apple makes a big deal about the quality and viewing angle of the screen, but is it really any different or better than their entry-level MacBook?
2. Loading webpages on the iPhone 3G is slow, even on Wifi; since the iPad is built on the iPhone platform, how does speed compare to a MacBook? In all the hands-on videos I've seen, the blue load bar at the top of the Safari window never seems to go away...
Comments
No, I wouldn't, but I'd rather have a "benevolent dictator" than anarchy, any day. Where's the "democracy" option? There's no way the average app store buyer can discern whether an app is potentially malicious or not, so Democracy on an individual basis is not an option in this case.
How about giving the customers what they want and not telling the customers what they should want? That would be a start. Tell me, does the lack of an App Store for your Mac make it a horrible, anarchic marketplace to choose software for it? Has it rendered your Mac useless? Oh woe is me! Apple doesn't pre-approve every application for the Mac! I have to, horrors of horrors, choose for myself! And has this made Macs unwieldy? Bug ridden? Useless? Why not the same for the iPhone OS?
Let the developers fulfill users' demands without going through a middleman, especially one with conflicting interests.
Facebook iPhone Dev Quits Project Over Apple Tyranny
?My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple?s policies.? ? Joe Hewitt
Facebook developer Joe Hewitt, the man behind the immensely popular Facebook application for iPhone, has just tweeted that he?s done with the project:
?Time for me to try something new. I?ve handed the Facebook iPhone app off to another engineer, and I?m onto a new project.?
We reached out to Hewitt for more details, and he attributed his decision to quit the project entirely on Apple?s tyrannical App Store approval policies:
My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple?s policies. I respect their right to manage their platform however they want, however I am philosophically opposed to the existence of their review process. I am very concerned that they are setting a horrible precedent for other software platforms, and soon gatekeepers will start infesting the lives of every software developer.
The web is still unrestricted and free, and so I am returning to my roots as a web developer. In the long term, I would like to be able to say that I helped to make the web the best mobile platform available, rather than being part of the transition to a world where every developer must go through a middleman to get their software in the hands of users.?
Tell me, does the lack of an App Store for your Mac make it a horrible, anarchic marketplace to choose software for it? Has it rendered your Mac useless?[/url]
The Mac under OS X, not so much, thanks to the security of the operating system. Windows? Absofuckinglutely.
Yeah, sure, the iPhone OS has probably been designed with security in mind, just like Mac OS X has, but I am even more secure under the iPhone OS than under Mac, knowing that it's absolutely impossible for phishing, data mining, botneting and otherwise malicious apps to get through (except for jailbreakers). If you want an open iPhone OS and you're savvy enough to keep it secure (is there a "little snitch" for iPhone?), then go ahead and do so. I'll stick with the App Store, TYVM.
If there's no "Little Snitch" for jailbroken iPhone, how do you know one of your apps isn't logging your passwords and bank account numbers and sending them somewhere?
How about giving the customers what they want and not telling the customers what they should want? That would be a start. Tell me, does the lack of an App Store for your Mac make it a horrible, anarchic marketplace to choose software for it? Has it rendered your Mac useless? Oh woe is me! Apple doesn't pre-approve every application for the Mac! I have to, horrors of horrors, choose for myself! And has this made Macs unwieldy? Bug ridden? Useless? Why not the same for the iPhone OS?
Let the developers fulfill users' demands without going through a middleman, especially one with conflicting interests.
The issue is that different customers have different wants. And quite often, those wants are at odds with each other. In other words, Apple can only satisfy one of two groups of people.
Specifically, most consumers prefer a device where they don't have to worry about malicious software. They also want to be able find, download, install, and delete apps in the easiest manner possible. The vast majority of people want an appliance-like phone.
Catering to this group unfortunately means that people, such as yourself, don't get the product they want. You would prefer to have a completely open platform that can be customized to no end, and for which software can be installed in a manner up to each developer. This results in a powerful tool for those who feel inclined to use and administer the more complicated device.
One might argue that optional features wouldn't ruin the experience for those who prefer an appliance-like phone. After all, they're optional features, just don't use them. Well in the real world, when the capability is there, people will invariably use it, no matter whether they have the skillset needed to use it effectively. The end result would be the majority of people having a worse experience using the phone.
The iPhone platform would be completely different if the app store didn't function as a middle-man. It would be a confusing mess of potentially bad software. With the app store, average users are installing, enjoying, and using more applications on their phones, by average, than on their home computers. It only takes one minute to learn how to use the app store. Users quickly understand that they don't need to worry about anything. They can install or uninstall anything they want without fear.
Opening up other app-delivery methods would have resulted in the following scenario: Aunt Jenny sends your mom a link to an a weather-bug app. The weather-bug app is installed, having never been vetted, and proceeds to muck up your mom's iPhone.
That isn't to say that this model is best for all platforms or all users. Just that it has worked out to the majority's benefit this time around. Even as a full-fledged computer and gadget geek, I've grown quite fond of how robust and simple the iPhone is, even with its 140000 apps.
The good news is that the pocket computer (smart phone) market is highly competitive. Numerous cash-rich multi-national corporations are spending hundreds of millions on R&D and are continuously releasing new and competitive products. Everyone has a choice. If the locked model doesn't work for you, choose something else. Now if one company starts to achieve a monopoly, then the managed-app-delivery model could become a net-bad. As of right now though, the dictator is benevolent.
Incidentally, the above reasoning, even if not agreed with, is what motivated Apple to prohibit 3rd party background processing at this time. (What most people are refering to as multi-tasking)
Catering to this group unfortunately means that people, such as yourself, don't get the product they want. You would prefer to have a completely open platform that can be customized to no end, and for which software can be installed in a manner up to each developer. This results in a powerful tool for those who feel inclined to use and administer the more complicated device.
There are of course many "open" products like this on the market. You can install what you want from where you want.
The trouble is that these devices perform less well in the market. Developers (and by developers I mean people who want to make software to generate revenue) are less attracted to these less successful platforms.
And consequently there is less good software available.
The short version is, platforms with fewer restrictions, end up restricting your choice.
Ironic huh?
C.
Apple is providing all of the above with the iPad, plus allowing all of the existing iPhone apps that will work great. That's one thing they're doing right that their competitors just didn't get.
There are of course many "open" products like this on the market. You can install what you want from where you want.
The trouble is that these devices perform less well in the market. Developers (and by developers I mean people who want to make software to generate revenue) are less attracted to these less successful platforms.
And consequently there is less good software available.
The short version is, platforms with fewer restrictions, end up restricting your choice.
Ironic huh?
C.
If the iPhone OS were open, like OS X, there might be just such a list for the iPhone and iPad:
http://www.opensourcemac.org/
It seems like 90% of the Apps in the App Store are simply web portals to allow access to websites that Safari for iPhone can't access.
Really? Then I guess you haven't ever used an iPhone or iPod Touch.
I've got all 11 pages full on my iPod Touch. I have one -- ONE -- app that is as you describe (the Youtube app that comes with it).
Don't spread FUD.
Such people obviously have an agenda beyond saying anything pertinent about the App Store, since statistics on the actual distribution of app types are easy to come by.
1. Apple makes a big deal about the quality and viewing angle of the screen, but is it really any different or better than their entry-level MacBook?
2. Loading webpages on the iPhone 3G is slow, even on Wifi; since the iPad is built on the iPhone platform, how does speed compare to a MacBook? In all the hands-on videos I've seen, the blue load bar at the top of the Safari window never seems to go away...