Briefly: 1M BlackBerry PlayBooks, Wikipedia founder calls App Store "dangerous," more evidence for i

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 126
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macnyc View Post


    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.



    Maybe it was a child under five with a PhD who contributed the fact "that frank discussion of necrophilia in their hit "Wake Up, Little Susie," led them to receive the nickname "fraternal godfathers of heavy metal.""



    There's nothing I like better than a frank discussion of necrophilia, so I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia called this to my attention in their article on the Everly Brothers.
  • Reply 42 of 126
    cmvsmcmvsm Posts: 204member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lav1daloca View Post


    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.



    As has been said a few times, Apple can do what it wants with its own products and applications. If you owned a business, how would you like someone like you telling you how you can sell or market your product, and that you need to be punished for not doing so. Answer is that as long as you are operating within legal parameters, you wouldn't.



    So again, show Apple your discontent by not purchasing their products and move on.
  • Reply 43 of 126
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Wales can shut his lying mouth as far as I'm concerned. Don't like the app store? Don't participate. It's frigging games and utilities for crying out loud. Is he completely god**** crazy? Wikipedia is a threat to Internet freedom if I've ever seen one. It's a 50% fact, 50% lying bullsh** website, it's the number one search result in Google (lending it artificial credibility), and touts itself as the encyclopedia of the world. For as long as they allow officlal party lines to remain in place of truth, THEY are biggest threat to Internet freedom that I can think of.
  • Reply 44 of 126
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lav1daloca View Post


    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.



    What the hell does legitimate mean? Is Cydia in some way Not "legitimate"? Give it a rest.



    Punished by the EU? What are you some kind of globalist whack job? The EU should be punished for existing and flexing it's muscle where it doesn't belong. Sovereignty works just fine, thank you very much.
  • Reply 45 of 126
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by niji View Post


    I also dont get Jimmy Wales point either, at least as far as is quoted in this article.



    but, what it might be equivalent to is this:



    a private app store is equivalent to a new shopping mall in the suburbs in the early 70's, drawing shoppers away from the city.



    shopping malls drew people away from a more spread out, and therefore more equalized economy.

    shopping malls centralised people away from a more broad based shopping pattern and concentrated the purchasing power into the hands of the mall tenants.



    it is a interesting comparison that could be made with the apple app store. iTunes store accounts for how much of all music purchased in the USA? same could happen to apps as well. fewer traffic to smaller independent software houses.



    That might come into his thinking, who knows? It's an interesting thought, but it's false. No, here's the thing:



    Malls, and WALMART, destroy that localized economy. The mom and pop stores have to shut, they can't compete with the big box retailers or the new developments full of entertainment in the suburbs. And mom and pop can't afford to move out of the little store they have had for fifty years in order to rent space in a premium area. Their business dies.



    Is that what the App Store is doing? No, quite the opposite. So, we have a few less unsophisticated websites to visit and trawl through looking for apps. Does that restrict the landscape of the net in the same way malls kill the town center? The only similarity is that "everything is in one place".



    Rather, small-time developers can now compete with software houses that could afford to have high-profile websites and shelf space in physical stores and costly and sophisticated methods of distribution. The terms, benefits, exposure and services provided by the App Store are great for... small developers (the mom and pop shops of the internet landscape). And the consumer. The App Store levels the landscape, disproportionately helping the small developer who wouldn't be able to distribute internationally otherwise. The developer can concentrate on his product and have it delivered without being a website designer or businessman. More win-wins with this scenario.



    "Fewer traffic to smaller independent software houses."? No, far more business for these smaller houses. Just read the success stories of independent, one-man houses who are getting the exposure and downloads and revenue of the big boys. Am I going to go find some crappy website that I read about on some geeky blog somewhere; and work out what to do to get my purchase downloaded and installed and working; and worry about the security of their payment processing; what about the worry that I may end up getting a pirate copy instead of paying the developer for the real thing? No, I'm just going to fire up the App Store app and put money directly into the small developer's pocket.
  • Reply 46 of 126
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmvsm View Post


    As has been said a few times, Apple can do what it wants with its own products and applications. If you owned a business, how would you like someone like you telling you how you can sell or market your product, and that you need to be punished for not doing so. Answer is that as long as you are operating within legal parameters, you wouldn't.



    So again, show Apple your discontent by not purchasing their products and move on.



    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.
  • Reply 47 of 126
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    It almost sounds like the new iPad wont be the iPad 2, but the iPad AV, or some other less major update, such as the iPhone 3GS was to the 3G.



    And the App Store is not a threat to freedom, it's an example of freedom. A company is offering a product and no-one is being forced to buy it. If they don't like curated apps then don't buy it.



    Speaking for myself, I prefer this model. Life's too short to be arseing about with malware.



    And Jeez, you'd think Jimmy would be grateful to have a disproportionate number of PhDs editing Wikipedia.
  • Reply 48 of 126
    sambansamban Posts: 171member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lav1daloca View Post


    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.



    The total cost of the device much higher than just the BOM + margin cost of the device it also incorporates the R&D cost and so on.



    What would have happened if there was no App Store then either no one would have cared about it and used the Internet just how you use it today or would have just used it like the Nokia phones that used be 10 years ago.



    The store keeper decides what product he would like to sell it at his store just like the car Manufacturers. If this is illegal then so is the entire automobile industry.
  • Reply 49 of 126
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    Jimmy, you have the freedom to use something else.



    What really scares him and the FOSS-nicks in the industry is that consumers are actively CHOOSING to partake of Apple's controlled system. Mostly because they're sick of putting up with the kind of garbage user experiences provided by "open" and uncontrolled distribution systems. This has nothing to do with the internet qua Internet, buy rather Apple's own ecosystem. If there is any trend toward closed ecosystems, controlled media dostribution models, it is entirely consumer driven.
  • Reply 50 of 126
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lav1daloca View Post


    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.



    And you CAN do whatever you want with it - haven't you figured that out yet?? I mean really the cupidity of the above statements reads like a wrong-headed open source manifesto. Just stop.



    For the umpteenth time - you friggin' don't haven't to do jack in the App Store - you can jailbreak your friggin' iDevice and do whatever the hell you want with it! Or better yet, rather than lose sleep over what one, minority player company in the wide technology universe is doing - buy from HP, or Moto, or RIM, or Samsung, or Dell or any of the many other mfgrs who are successfully offering similar devices in the marketplace. I mean, WTF?? You have all this freedom and you gripe about one little company who doesn't do business according to your glorious freedom for all mentality. Can you even wrap your head around the silliness of your statements?



    Why do you persist in demanding that Apple on one hand guarantee a seamless experience for you and then turn around and demand that you be openly allowed with no discomfort whatsoever to do whatever the hell you want with your device with no repercussions? I'm serious - just stop this nonsense.



    If you want to do whatever on your iDevice - jailbreak and get on with your life, living with whatever, if any, consequences come your way as a result of that decision. It ain't hard and there are great tools and apps out there waiting for you if you do. If you want a largely seamless and comfortable experience you can leave it as is out of the box and enjoy the quality of the apps that reside in the App Store. See - it's freedom baby - it's very cool.



    But for the love of technology just stop the complete and utter nonsense about Apple locking the iDevice and you being tied helplessly to the railroad tracks of their marketing, app and device system. It just sound utterly stupid.
  • Reply 51 of 126
    Let's see... projects launched by Jimmy Wales:



    Nupedia -- failure.

    Openserving -- failure.

    Search Wikia -- failure.

    CiviliNation -- failure.



    Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia, so we'll credit him with its success.



    Somebody remind us, why are we listening to what Jimmy Wales thinks?
  • Reply 52 of 126
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lav1daloca View Post


    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're either 14 years old, or on way too many psychotropic drugs. Either way, you know absolutely ZERO about law.
  • Reply 53 of 126
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lav1daloca View Post


    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!

    .



    The Apple terms are as good as if not better than anyone else's. It hasn't stopped anyone from developing and making money if they want to: 99 bucks and 30%.



    No investment? The whole App Store is an investment. They take care of hosting, payment processing, bandwidth and distribution; shelf-space and presentation and exposure and rating system; and upgrade mechanism, etc. Most small developers sound extremely happy with the deal and getting 70% (of the price the developer sets) put smoothly into their bank account.



    You sound like one of these politically-correct, mightily indignant, do-gooders enslaved to mere appearances. Are you a developer "enslaved" to Apple? Or do you just presume to speak for all these developers who don't find it worth their while to develop for any other platform any more? At the least, you must be enslaved to the fanciful notions of what passes for definitions of "Open" and "monopoly" these days.



    I'd like a class action against Google for doing who-knows-what with my private data while they hide behind their goodness and openness. That's exploitation and corrupt power!
  • Reply 54 of 126
    quevarquevar Posts: 101member
    Wiki has moderators that monitor the content that is posted onto Wikipedia. This is exactly the same thing that Apple does with the Apps. Both of them are moderating and filtering what the consumers see. Based on what Wikipedia does, not what he says, Wikipedia believes that the internet needs moderation from people who want to post inaccurate information and/or spam. I find what he says to be incredibly hypocritical based on the policies enforced at Wikipedia.
  • Reply 55 of 126
    shadashshadash Posts: 470member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by See Flat View Post


    Have you seen or tried a 7 inch pad. I was amazed at how small it is when I saw it. I would never want one.



    I agree. I went to a Verizon store a few weeks ago and played with one. But my point is there is demand - quite a bit more than I would have though before the release of the Galaxy - for that size.
  • Reply 56 of 126
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,758member
    Does Jimmy Wales have some personal agenda here? I can't think what on earth he is talking about nor why he thinks he is in a position to make such a comment. Does he feel the same about the myriad of Apple copycat's 'app stores' too or just Apple's?
  • Reply 57 of 126
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Wikipedia



    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."



    Really? People can buy whatever apps they want (including none at all), and developers can get paid for their work. Where's the harm? Not every developer wants to work for free (or can afford to). This guy seems to have gone off the "open sores" rails.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    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.



    Here's a novel idea; how about simplifying the editing system to make it easier to determine when an edit was made, and in what context (from the whole-document perspective).
  • Reply 58 of 126
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post


    The Apple terms are as good as if not better than anyone else's. It hasn't stopped anyone from developing and making money if they want to: 99 bucks and 30%.



    No investment? The whole App Store is an investment. They take care of hosting, payment processing, bandwidth and distribution; shelf-space and presentation and exposure and rating system; and upgrade mechanism, etc. Most small developers sound extremely happy with the deal and getting 70% (of the price the developer sets) put smoothly into their bank account.



    You sound like one of these politically-correct, mightily indignant, do-gooders enslaved to mere appearances. Are you a developer "enslaved" to Apple? Or do you just presume to speak for all these developers who don't find it worth their while to develop for any other platform any more? At the least, you must be enslaved to the fanciful notions of what passes for definitions of "Open" and "monopoly" these days.



    I'd like a class action against Google for doing who-knows-what with my private data while they hide behind their goodness and openness. That's exploitation and corrupt power!



    I'm not suggesting what they should or shouldn't do on their App Store, that's their App Store and if people go buy at that store then they oath to respect their rules. But they shouldn't be allowed to hinder people if they want to install an app from some other place/store. Why do I have to jailbreak and possibly break my phone free just because I want to install a program on it. Do you jailbreak your PC before you install a program on it? Obviously this is directed at all closed system smartphone OS's (BB, WP7, webOS)



    That's like buying a car and only be allowed from your car maker to fill up your tank at Chevron with a specifically made tank whole where only Chevron can access it, if you don't obey then your warranty is void. How would you react to that?



    People getting upset and defending Apple on this one are either on Apple's payroll or they are so brainwashed that they don't see how illegal this is.
  • Reply 59 of 126
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    After the Samsung Galaxy Tab?s sales using Android 2.2 I think 1M PlayBooks is conservative.



    Don't follow what you're saying here: that Galaxy sales are > 1M?



    If so, I'd love to see a cite.
  • Reply 60 of 126
    Quote:

    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.



    Yes, please get more old uneducated women to write for Wiki!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.