He's spot on. We all know how successful Linux has been, don't we?
Linux (and that's correctly without the "GNU" prefix) is quite successful as a server platform. As a desktop platform, however, it's at least 10-15 years behind the "closed" alternatives.
I don't get the point of opening up iTunes. Open it up to developers? That is nonsense. Open it up to their competitors? Amazon and others have their own content systems. Sure Wal-Mart should open up their content distribution system so that Target can sell in their stores. Opening up iTunes would be like opening up Apple's brick and mortar stores so that Compaq can sell their goods there. iTunes is not the only place you can go to to buy music, movies, software and tv shows. The fact that so many people choose to buy there says something about the iTunes store compared to the others.
Amazon and other content systems are illegal under clause 11.2 of the in-app purchasing guidelines. They may be in there, but - unless Apple change that clause - they will be kicked out eventually. Similarly with any content provider who has a separate website.
Since Lo did deal with that in his speech it would be worth talking about.
How low can you go. It's not very sensitive to say all this at a time when Steve Jobs is home on sickleave and cannot defend himself (if he would want to, which I doubt).
Sounds like someone I wouldn't hire. His sense of reason is stuck in a non sequitur.
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out his idea of open & closed cause the definition is somewhat hazy to me. He probably just bought an iPhone & tried to jailbreak it, bricking it in the process.
He conveniently ignores many other examples of closed systems that have been very successful. It's easy to find examples to support your argument, it's getting people to ignore the glaring arguments against that is hard.
What they dont like is being forced to pay a ransom to Apple for content purchasing they could provide themselves. The 30% on in-app purchases for content bought through iTunes makes sense for small distributors with no web presence. For other distributors it is an extortionate racket - a price for doing business in Apple's neighborhood with no value added by Apple.
Apple does add value. Apple has created a new venue for consuming content. Content publishers, such as magazines/books etc haven't developed anything new in the sense that it's the same content they create in print and on their websites. However, the experience between web content and what can be done in an iOS app is huge.
I expect Apple to come up with a more reasonable solution however.
Linux (and that's correctly without the "GNU" prefix) is quite successful as a server platform. As a desktop platform, however, it's at least 10-15 years behind the "closed" alternatives.
Don't forget it makes up a good number of platforms for devices like CCTV mpeg encoders to mp3 player platforms. Linux is far more widespread than people really know, possibly even more widely used than Windows.
Apple does add value. Apple has created a new venue for consuming content. Content publishers, such as magazines/books etc haven't developed anything new in the sense that it's the same content they create in print and on their websites. However, the experience between web content and what can be done in an iOS app is huge.
I expect Apple to come up with a more reasonable solution however.
No value whatsoever. Imagine a web site which streams movies. Or sells books as PDFS. Or sells music online. Or photos. Whatever. Digital content. It builds an app to allow pre-exiting customers to see their content on an app rather than online ( for movies that would be essential because flash is not available).
Apple sees that as in contravention of 11.2
Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected
That is, the very existence of a website is in violation of 11.2. ( As would be the existence of the app on other platforms were the app on other platforms to allow purchasing content which could also turn up on the iPad app).
This either forces people to either rebuy the same stuff in the app again, or pull the app.
What are Apple providing for this?
They dont store the content, nor do the streaming or downloading. They dont own the content. It is merely extortion to stay on the platform.
I had a Netgear router once. It looked like a children's bath toy and never worked properly with my Macs.
Everyone knows Jobs has an ego the size of a planet. Given the success of Apple in the last 10 years, as either an Apple consumer or shareholder, you'd have to be pleased. This is needless bleating by someone no one even knows.
I am a system administrator for a large design agency that uses about 80% Macs for design and general productivity and 20% Windows machines for CAD and 3D.
All our routers are Netgear. Of all the network makers that are not Cisco or HP, Netgear's devices are by far the best. Extremely robust and reliable. Never had a failure in 8 years. That's Netgear's professional line up, and home devices may be different, I don't know.
Your comment is ignorant, nothing more, nothing less.
Which looks like Android, extrapolating. I hope it isn't, but it looks like.
What they dont like is being forced to pay a ransom to Apple for content purchasing they could provide themselves. The 30% on in-app purchases for content bought through iTunes makes sense for small distributors with no web presence. For other distributors it is an extortionate racket - a price for doing business in Apple's neighborhood with no value added by Apple.
Hmmm... so when you buy software from a shop, or an online merchant, you don't think they take their %??
30% will prove to be a bargain if it increases net profit for any developer. If it doesn't work, expect Apple to shave its % because I don't think it will give up on the App Store idea itself, since this fits right in with its strategy of making everything as simple as it can be FOR THE CUSTOMER.
No value added by Apple? I think you cannot possibly have ever been involved in tracking users and their updates... solving this one problem is worth 10% on its own.
Linux (and that's correctly without the "GNU" prefix) is quite successful as a server platform. As a desktop platform, however, it's at least 10-15 years behind the "closed" alternatives.
10 to 15 years? how do you get that number? as a desktop, unless you want to site some specific app, it ain't that far behind windows or os x.
-posted using chromium running on ubuntu 10.04. the mac has been retired and windows is just a vm under virtualbox that gets fired up when i have to.
i don't know of anyone running 'linux' that doesn't involve the 'GNU' prefix. its difficult to make use of it just on its own.
"All our routers are Netgear. Of all the network makers that are not Cisco or HP, Netgear's devices are by far the best. Extremely robust and reliable. Never had a failure in 8 years. That's Netgear's professional line up, and home devices may be different, I don't know."
So what you're saying is Netgear are 3rd best, after Cisco and HP. You may well be right.
On Mr. Lo's whinge about Apple being a closed solution, one must point out that even if Netgear kit is as good as you say, one thing it is NOT, however, is OPEN. Ever tried to modify their firmware? Or the configuration app? Or is it OK to be CLOSED when you're Netgear, but not when you're Apple?
Hmmm... so when you buy software from a shop, or an online merchant, you don't think they take their %??
30% will prove to be a bargain if it increases net profit for any developer. If it doesn't work, expect Apple to shave its % because I don't think it will give up on the App Store idea itself, since this fits right in with its strategy of making everything as simple as it can be FOR THE CUSTOMER.
No value added by Apple? I think you cannot possibly have ever been involved in tracking users and their updates... solving this one problem is worth 10% on its own.
I dont think you understood a word i said. The apps I am talking about track their own users, and do their own fulfilment. In fact using Apple's model stops them from doing that since Apple does not release the user information. Besides all that the in-app purchasing forces pricing models which are not what people want.
However all that is moot because if you buy something on the Android app, or online, it cant appear on the iPad app because that is in contravention of 11.2 anyway. There is no business model there. Apps which seem to violate this rule ( i.e. Kindle) have gotten a bye. There are rumours that Apple have demanded compliance by June.
Unless something better comes up, most content providers will move to Android. Blood is already bad.
No value whatsoever. Imagine a web site which streams movies. Or sells books as PDFS. Or sells music online. Or photos. Whatever. Digital content. It builds an app to allow pre-exiting customers to see their content on an app rather than online ( for movies that would be essential because flash is not available).
Apple sees that as in contravention of 11.2
Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected
That is, the very existence of a website is in violation of 11.2. ( As would be the existence of the app on other platforms were the app on other platforms to allow purchasing content which could also turn up on the iPad app).
This either forces people to either rebuy the same stuff in the app again, or pull the app.
What are Apple providing for this?
They dont store the content, nor do the streaming or downloading. They dont own the content. It is merely extortion to stay on the platform.
I agree if you interpret it that way, but that would mean nearly every app violates Apple
s policy, so NYT, WSJ, Financial Times, Sirius, NetFlix, Barron's, basically everything should be kicked out. I highly doubt Apple would ever do that.
I don't think it's fair to call it extortion when Apple hasn't enforced that policy. When they do, then fine, but I don't see that happening. Without all those apps Apple would have a hard time selling it's iOS devices, which brought in about $18 billion last quarter. The money generated from the iTunes is peanuts. Wouldn't make sense to risk device sales for such a small potential gain.
I still use a Netgear router to connect to the internet, but it's just in dumb-mode and all the local network admin is done by my Airport Extreme, which is much easier to administer.
When the Netgear breaks, I won't be buying another one. Nor will I recommend them to anyone.
Steve Jobs, despite all the criticism, is a leader and an innovator. Apple is where it is today largely due to his vision. As such, it is an innovative company and technology leader.
NetGear (including Mr. Lo, et al) is, has been, and always will be, nothing more than a follower. Strange how followers are (almost) never criticized; they travel with the herd and take no risks, present no target, and are no threat. 'Nuf said.
Comments
He's spot on. We all know how successful Linux has been, don't we?
Linux (and that's correctly without the "GNU" prefix) is quite successful as a server platform. As a desktop platform, however, it's at least 10-15 years behind the "closed" alternatives.
I don't get the point of opening up iTunes. Open it up to developers? That is nonsense. Open it up to their competitors? Amazon and others have their own content systems. Sure Wal-Mart should open up their content distribution system so that Target can sell in their stores. Opening up iTunes would be like opening up Apple's brick and mortar stores so that Compaq can sell their goods there. iTunes is not the only place you can go to to buy music, movies, software and tv shows. The fact that so many people choose to buy there says something about the iTunes store compared to the others.
Amazon and other content systems are illegal under clause 11.2 of the in-app purchasing guidelines. They may be in there, but - unless Apple change that clause - they will be kicked out eventually. Similarly with any content provider who has a separate website.
Since Lo did deal with that in his speech it would be worth talking about.
Sounds like someone I wouldn't hire. His sense of reason is stuck in a non sequitur.
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out his idea of open & closed cause the definition is somewhat hazy to me. He probably just bought an iPhone & tried to jailbreak it, bricking it in the process.
He conveniently ignores many other examples of closed systems that have been very successful. It's easy to find examples to support your argument, it's getting people to ignore the glaring arguments against that is hard.
What they dont like is being forced to pay a ransom to Apple for content purchasing they could provide themselves. The 30% on in-app purchases for content bought through iTunes makes sense for small distributors with no web presence. For other distributors it is an extortionate racket - a price for doing business in Apple's neighborhood with no value added by Apple.
Apple does add value. Apple has created a new venue for consuming content. Content publishers, such as magazines/books etc haven't developed anything new in the sense that it's the same content they create in print and on their websites. However, the experience between web content and what can be done in an iOS app is huge.
I expect Apple to come up with a more reasonable solution however.
Linux (and that's correctly without the "GNU" prefix) is quite successful as a server platform. As a desktop platform, however, it's at least 10-15 years behind the "closed" alternatives.
Don't forget it makes up a good number of platforms for devices like CCTV mpeg encoders to mp3 player platforms. Linux is far more widespread than people really know, possibly even more widely used than Windows.
Apple does add value. Apple has created a new venue for consuming content. Content publishers, such as magazines/books etc haven't developed anything new in the sense that it's the same content they create in print and on their websites. However, the experience between web content and what can be done in an iOS app is huge.
I expect Apple to come up with a more reasonable solution however.
No value whatsoever. Imagine a web site which streams movies. Or sells books as PDFS. Or sells music online. Or photos. Whatever. Digital content. It builds an app to allow pre-exiting customers to see their content on an app rather than online ( for movies that would be essential because flash is not available).
Apple sees that as in contravention of 11.2
Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected
That is, the very existence of a website is in violation of 11.2. ( As would be the existence of the app on other platforms were the app on other platforms to allow purchasing content which could also turn up on the iPad app).
This either forces people to either rebuy the same stuff in the app again, or pull the app.
What are Apple providing for this?
They dont store the content, nor do the streaming or downloading. They dont own the content. It is merely extortion to stay on the platform.
I had a Netgear router once. It looked like a children's bath toy and never worked properly with my Macs.
Everyone knows Jobs has an ego the size of a planet. Given the success of Apple in the last 10 years, as either an Apple consumer or shareholder, you'd have to be pleased. This is needless bleating by someone no one even knows.
I am a system administrator for a large design agency that uses about 80% Macs for design and general productivity and 20% Windows machines for CAD and 3D.
All our routers are Netgear. Of all the network makers that are not Cisco or HP, Netgear's devices are by far the best. Extremely robust and reliable. Never had a failure in 8 years. That's Netgear's professional line up, and home devices may be different, I don't know.
Your comment is ignorant, nothing more, nothing less.
Which looks like Android, extrapolating. I hope it isn't, but it looks like.
What they dont like is being forced to pay a ransom to Apple for content purchasing they could provide themselves. The 30% on in-app purchases for content bought through iTunes makes sense for small distributors with no web presence. For other distributors it is an extortionate racket - a price for doing business in Apple's neighborhood with no value added by Apple.
Hmmm... so when you buy software from a shop, or an online merchant, you don't think they take their %??
30% will prove to be a bargain if it increases net profit for any developer. If it doesn't work, expect Apple to shave its % because I don't think it will give up on the App Store idea itself, since this fits right in with its strategy of making everything as simple as it can be FOR THE CUSTOMER.
No value added by Apple? I think you cannot possibly have ever been involved in tracking users and their updates... solving this one problem is worth 10% on its own.
Sounds like someone I wouldn't hire. His sense of reason is stuck in a non sequitur.
You wouldn't be able to, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't hire you either as mindless zealotry does not go down well at job interviews.
Linux (and that's correctly without the "GNU" prefix) is quite successful as a server platform. As a desktop platform, however, it's at least 10-15 years behind the "closed" alternatives.
10 to 15 years? how do you get that number? as a desktop, unless you want to site some specific app, it ain't that far behind windows or os x.
-posted using chromium running on ubuntu 10.04. the mac has been retired and windows is just a vm under virtualbox that gets fired up when i have to.
i don't know of anyone running 'linux' that doesn't involve the 'GNU' prefix. its difficult to make use of it just on its own.
... Apple has created a new venue for consuming content......
Pity they're all but killing their own market for producing said content at the same time.
"All our routers are Netgear. Of all the network makers that are not Cisco or HP, Netgear's devices are by far the best. Extremely robust and reliable. Never had a failure in 8 years. That's Netgear's professional line up, and home devices may be different, I don't know."
So what you're saying is Netgear are 3rd best, after Cisco and HP. You may well be right.
On Mr. Lo's whinge about Apple being a closed solution, one must point out that even if Netgear kit is as good as you say, one thing it is NOT, however, is OPEN. Ever tried to modify their firmware? Or the configuration app? Or is it OK to be CLOSED when you're Netgear, but not when you're Apple?
Hmmm... so when you buy software from a shop, or an online merchant, you don't think they take their %??
30% will prove to be a bargain if it increases net profit for any developer. If it doesn't work, expect Apple to shave its % because I don't think it will give up on the App Store idea itself, since this fits right in with its strategy of making everything as simple as it can be FOR THE CUSTOMER.
No value added by Apple? I think you cannot possibly have ever been involved in tracking users and their updates... solving this one problem is worth 10% on its own.
I dont think you understood a word i said. The apps I am talking about track their own users, and do their own fulfilment. In fact using Apple's model stops them from doing that since Apple does not release the user information. Besides all that the in-app purchasing forces pricing models which are not what people want.
However all that is moot because if you buy something on the Android app, or online, it cant appear on the iPad app because that is in contravention of 11.2 anyway. There is no business model there. Apps which seem to violate this rule ( i.e. Kindle) have gotten a bye. There are rumours that Apple have demanded compliance by June.
Unless something better comes up, most content providers will move to Android. Blood is already bad.
No value whatsoever. Imagine a web site which streams movies. Or sells books as PDFS. Or sells music online. Or photos. Whatever. Digital content. It builds an app to allow pre-exiting customers to see their content on an app rather than online ( for movies that would be essential because flash is not available).
Apple sees that as in contravention of 11.2
Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected
That is, the very existence of a website is in violation of 11.2. ( As would be the existence of the app on other platforms were the app on other platforms to allow purchasing content which could also turn up on the iPad app).
This either forces people to either rebuy the same stuff in the app again, or pull the app.
What are Apple providing for this?
They dont store the content, nor do the streaming or downloading. They dont own the content. It is merely extortion to stay on the platform.
I agree if you interpret it that way, but that would mean nearly every app violates Apple
s policy, so NYT, WSJ, Financial Times, Sirius, NetFlix, Barron's, basically everything should be kicked out. I highly doubt Apple would ever do that.
I don't think it's fair to call it extortion when Apple hasn't enforced that policy. When they do, then fine, but I don't see that happening. Without all those apps Apple would have a hard time selling it's iOS devices, which brought in about $18 billion last quarter. The money generated from the iTunes is peanuts. Wouldn't make sense to risk device sales for such a small potential gain.
As in very much? As in, Safari is based on a Linux Web Browser?
Mac OS X being Open, as is stated on the Apple Website (though, however, not Open Source), I'd call BS on your comment.
I call BS on his vague use of "open", and I was talking about desktop, mind you.
When the Netgear breaks, I won't be buying another one. Nor will I recommend them to anyone.
NetGear (including Mr. Lo, et al) is, has been, and always will be, nothing more than a follower. Strange how followers are (almost) never criticized; they travel with the herd and take no risks, present no target, and are no threat. 'Nuf said.