Found this on Gruber's site. I think it brings the whole "open" thing to it's conclusion.
Motorola Cliq XT Won?t Get Android 2.1 Upgrade ★
Christopher Trout:
Motorola?s dangled an Android 2.1 upgrade in front of CLIQ XT users for what seems like forever ? now it?s putting away the bait indefinitely. In a statement released this morning, the company said that despite months of rigorous testing, the phone will remain on Android 1.5.
That?s OK, because Android is open. Cliq XT owners can just type ?mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make? and they?ll be all set.
ROFLOL - this is exactly the kind of crap the overwhelming majority of people don't want to deal with.
People have hundreds of thousands of options (apps) for use on apple iOS devices and that in effect makes it just as "open".
This is a curious definition of open. Apple has enormous control over the development tools and distribution process for those apps. They can, and have, removed apps from the App Store on a whim, leaving developers and users with no recourse. That's hardly open.[/QUOTE]
That?s OK, because Android is open. Cliq XT owners can just type ?mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make? and they?ll be all set.
Probably not the owners, but the modders who build third party firmware, like CyanogenMod or rubiX.
I grow more and more concerned with our society with everyday that passes by. It's as if we are becoming a nation of sheep who want things closed off and controlled by a single entity. This is why I can't bring myself to buy an iPhone or iPad even though I've been a proud Mac owner for almost twelve years now. I'm seeing a shift towards a one-hundred percent Apple controlled system and I really hope this does not leech over into the Mac OS. If it does I will leave the platform/company and never look back. I know others within the company that also feel this way.
Seeing this many people wanting to completely ditch an open platform for one that is closed and notorious for it's over the top rules and bullshit really makes me sick. I would prefer to not be a tech-nation that is driven by the products of one company. I don't want any one entity to have that much direct influence on any given part of my day to day life, but it seems as though Apple is trying more and more everyday to creep into all of our live with more and more shit rules that we really dont need. Honestly, I'm going to violently smack the next person I hear talking about using the iPad as any kind of replacement for a standard desktop/notebook machine. This whole "I'm going to mandate what you can and can't do on your own shit because I made it" mentality is the exact opposite direction that any developing technology should be moving in.
The Mac OS will be controlled in this manor within three years and people will just lap it up because it's Apple. Mark my words.
Please don't feed the troll. The bolded passage in the first paragraph is the "I'm really a troll" statement. People that buy Apple products repeatedly for 12+ years do so exactly because of the vertical market. The trolls don't think that way, so they consistently bork it up by faking their "loyalty". As if "loyalty" even existed except in their minds. What the trolls don't get is that most Apple customers aren't buying because it's Apple as much as they are buying Apple because Apple is the ONLY manufacturer that Gets It in their chosen product spaces. I may have started with Apple hardware in '88, but I went Power Computing for awhile because they were superior and less expensive. I wanted to go Next, but it was pretty pricey and when I was finally ready it had lost too much steam. I'm pretty fickle a consumer, make it better and for less and I'll move in a heartbeat, and have. Seems nobody wants to though.
The rest is just camoflauge around a few standard troll topics. Openness and control. Again a complete missing of the point of a vertical market. So let them rant a couple times, and get out of breath, then let them slither back whence they came.
Please don't feed the troll. The bolded passage in the first paragraph is the "I'm really a troll" statement.
What a telling response. He raised some serious questions about the concentration of power and control in a single company. I've not seen a single reply on here make a good faith attempt to answer them. Instead, you dismiss him as a crank and a troll.
Are you going to defend Apple's App Store policies? Policies such as blocking apps because of content, preventing third-party payment schemes, or pulling apps after they're already approved? I'm curious to hear a defense of policies that allow apps like iFart, Drunken Sniper, iPoo, and Playboy, but disallow Google Voice, Sony Reader, NewToons, Android Magasinet, Wobble, and some (but not all) "adult-themed" apps.
I can understand if Apple chooses not to distribute certain content via its App Store (although it distributes far worse via iTunes and iBooks). My problem is that users don't have a choice. If Google chooses not to distribute an app via the Android Market, users can install the app from the developer's web site. On iOS, users have no such recourse.
To use an analogy from the physical world, imagine that I go to Best Buy and buy a DVD player. Best Buy might not sell a particular DVD title that I want, and that's certainly their prerogative. But I'm free to buy that content elsewhere (Target, Amazon, etc). Best Buy can't prevent me from shopping elsewhere, and they don't demand a cut of every DVD purchase I make. Why is Apple being given special treatment here?
Likewise, when major retailers refuse to distribute certain content (such as a CD with political lyrics or a controversial book), they are often (correctly) criticized for their censorship. Yet, I never see that sort of criticism of Apple's app store policies on this forum. I wonder why that is.
I believe your first image is from a prototype Android device. This is a screenshot of Android 1.5's soft keyboard:
You can see that it's very similar to the iOS keyboard.
Your second image is not the stock Android keyboard. It's Swype, a third-party keyboard. Swype lets users drag a finger across the keyboard, which many users report is faster and less error-prone than traditional soft keyboards. This is a novel feature and hardly constitutes copying the iOS keyboard.
Why do all these people who hate Apple continually come on to these boards? Open vs. closed is BS. There is a totally open way to put a program on an iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch with Apple's blessing but without the "restrictions." They are called web apps. It is the original way to write apps for the iPhone. You don't have to sell them through the restrictive App Store. You don't need Apple's approval to put them on your phone. But for some reason nobody wants to acknowledge this route but instead just complain about how closed Apple is. Apple implemented these App Store policies because it has 35 years of history dealing with people calling them when third party software brings their computers to a screeching halt. I know. My dad is one of them. He puts some crappy software on his computer then calls me to complain when his computer crashes. When I tell him its the software and not the computer he just gets frustrated and calls Apple. Who then tells him the same thing. Most of the apps I've put on my iPhone to replace the Web apps I originally used are exactly the same. I actually still use a couple web apps too. When the iPhone first came out everybody complained about web apps but isn't that exactly what Google is doing with Chrome OS? To all the Google fans jump on their bandwagon and create web apps for iPhone, Droid, or whatever. Be as open as you want. Have all your porn, political agendas, and fart apps. Just do not expect Apple to give support when it doesn't work.
There is a totally open way to put a program on an iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch with Apple's blessing but without the "restrictions." They are called web apps.
Web apps are a good way to side-step Apple's App Store policies, and to avoid per-platform apps, but they're not a complete solution. There are plenty of things you can't do from a web app, at least not yet. For example, using the camera or microphone, or querying the address book. There is still a need for native apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla
Apple implemented these App Store policies because it has 35 years of history dealing with people calling them when third party software brings their computers to a screeching halt.
I don't follow. Are you saying that a fart noise app is less likely to crash iOS than an app that displays political cartoons? That doesn't seem to make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla
Have all your porn, political agendas, and fart apps. Just do not expect Apple to give support when it doesn't work.
No one is asking Apple to support third-party apps. We're just asking them not to block them and not to place such restrictions on their development. There are plenty of techniques that can be used to minimize the damage an app can do, such as running it inside a virtual machine or sandbox. Banning apps because they don't give Apple a cut of third-party financial transactions has nothing to do with app stability.
Web apps are a good way to side-step Apple's App Store policies, and to avoid per-platform apps, but they're not a complete solution. There are plenty of things you can't do from a web app, at least not yet. For example, using the camera or microphone, or querying the address book. There is still a need for native apps.
True although I do not want apps querying my address book except for the phone itself and I just use the camera app to take pictures. Works for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr
I don't follow. Are you saying that a fart noise app is less likely to crash iOS than an app that displays political cartoons? That doesn't seem to make sense.
No, I am saying crying censorship is BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr
No one is asking Apple to support third-party apps. We're just asking them not to block them and not to place such restrictions on their development. There are plenty of techniques that can be used to minimize the damage an app can do, such as running it inside a virtual machine or sandbox. Banning apps because they don't give Apple a cut of third-party financial transactions has nothing to do with app stability.
I disagree. I have had apps crash my iPhone so I do believe it is happening to other people and I bet at least 80% of them are not calling the developers they are calling Apple. And no Apple does not have to support Sony's eReader app that directs Apple's customers to a competing product in their App Store. Sony can crate a web app and promote and sell it on their own site. That is business in a free capitalistic society. They are not preventing Sony from competing they just should not be required to promote a competitor.
No one is asking Apple to support third-party apps. We're just asking them not to block them and not to place such restrictions on their development. There are plenty of techniques that can be used to minimize the damage an app can do, such as running it inside a virtual machine or sandbox. Banning apps because they don't give Apple a cut of third-party financial transactions has nothing to do with app stability.
They are not banning apps for offering a third-party payment system, they are only insisting that you also offer in-app payments (of which, Apple gets a cut). Some might prefer paying through iTunes rather than blasting their credit card info to each separate app provider.
This point is irrelevant. I never said that apps don't crash. My objection was to which apps are allowed in the store. The rest of your comment is speculation, unless you have some evidence to back it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla
Apple does not have to support Sony's eReader app that directs Apple's customers to a competing product in their App Store.
No one is asking Apple to support a third-party app. Neither are they asking Apple to promote a competing app. But there is a difference between not promoting it and banning it. Apple has created a double standard: Sony could create a web app, which would be crippled due to lack of APIs, or they build a native app and pay Apple a 30% cut. That sounds like "protection money" to me.
No one is asking Apple to support a third-party app. Neither are they asking Apple to promote a competing app. But there is a difference between not promoting it and banning it. Apple has created a double standard: Sony could create a web app, which would be crippled due to lack of APIs, or they build a native app and pay Apple a 30% cut. That sounds like "protection money" to me.
You keep misstating this. Apple only requires that you offer in-app payment in addition to your out-of-app payment.
True although I do not want apps querying my address book except for the phone itself and I just use the camera app to take pictures. Works for me.
No, I am saying crying censorship is BS.
I disagree. I have had apps crash my iPhone so I do believe it is happening to other people and I bet at least 80% of them are not calling the developers they are calling Apple. And no Apple does not have to support Sony's eReader app that directs Apple's customers to a competing product in their App Store. Sony can crate a web app and promote and sell it on their own site. That is business in a free capitalistic society. They are not preventing Sony from competing they just should not be required to promote a competitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr
It is censorship, plain as day.
Whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr
This point is irrelevant. I never said that apps don't crash. My objection was to which apps are allowed in the store. The rest of your comment is speculation, unless you have some evidence to back it up.
I do have evidence. My everyday life when I am asked to help people when things go wrong with their devices that had nothing to do with Apple but the user blames Apple. Happens to me constantly because I am somewhat more tech savvy than most of the people around me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr
No one is asking Apple to support a third-party app. Neither are they asking Apple to promote a competing app. But there is a difference between not promoting it and banning it. Apple has created a double standard: Sony could create a web app, which would be crippled due to lack of APIs, or they build a native app and pay Apple a 30% cut. That sounds like "protection money" to me.
If you do not accept that 90% of the purpose of the App Store is promotion then you can't be reasoned with. The app is not the competing product, what they are selling in the app is. If they do not like the 30% cut, raise the price the way every other product manufacturer does. That's like saying any retail operation should be selling other peoples products and not make any money to cover their expenses and commit the crime of maybe making a profit off it, which in Apples case isn't relatively much. If they are providing the "shelf space" and doing most of the promotion then they deserve a cut. Free enterprise ain't it a bitch.
Telling response. About what I expected from this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla
If they are providing the "shelf space" and doing most of the promotion then they deserve a cut. Free enterprise ain't it a bitch.
It's not about promotion. Sony does a lot of promotion of their e-readers and bookstore, as do Amazon and B&N. They don't need (nor are they asking) Apple to do promotion for them. Similarly, they aren't asking RIM or Google to promote the Kindle or Nook apps.
This is about competition. Apple's policies are anti-competitive. Apple's iBook store can't cut it, so Apple changes the rules. It's stunts like this that make the FTC investigate Apple for anti-competitive behavior.
Telling response. About what I expected from this forum.
Then go somewhere else. I am not going to argue against the same tired old crap that most reasonable people agree are not legitimate complaints and no one is going to change their opinion on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr
It's not about promotion. Sony does a lot of promotion of their e-readers and bookstore, as do Amazon and B&N. They don't need (nor are they asking) Apple to do promotion for them. Similarly, they aren't asking RIM or Google to promote the Kindle or Nook apps.
This is about competition. Apple's policies are anti-competitive. Apple's iBook store can't cut it, so Apple changes the rules. It's stunts like this that make the FTC investigate Apple for anti-competitive behavior.
So it's anti-competitive to not promote a competing product in your own store. Is Amazon promoting iBooks or would allow the iBooks app on the Kindle? Because boy that sound anti-competitive.
Where did the notion that competition means you have the right to have whatever you want whenever you want where ever you want just because you want it. Apple does not have an obligation to supply you with something just because that is what you want. If you do not like it then shop somewhere else. Take your ball and go home. And don't try to preach to people who prefer the Apple way. It is their preference and they do have a right to it.
I believe your first image is from a prototype Android device.
Duh, That's the whole point!
Quote:
This is a screenshot of Android 1.5's soft keyboard:
You can see that it's very similar to the iOS keyboard.
That was my point too. I'm 2 for two, what are you exactly engaging on here???
Quote:
Your second image is not the stock Android keyboard. It's Swype, a third-party keyboard. Swype lets users drag a finger across the keyboard, which many users report is faster and less error-prone than traditional soft keyboards. This is a novel feature and hardly constitutes copying the iOS keyboard.
Swype is just a app, and it happens to be a rough copy of ShapeWriter which was out for iOS in the beginning of the App Store days. Hardly a novel feature when there were previous shipping versions more than a year prior to it even being possible on an Android phone.
This is a curious definition of open. Apple has enormous control over the development tools and distribution process for those apps. They can, and have, removed apps from the App Store on a whim, leaving developers and users with no recourse. That's hardly open.
[/QUOTE]
Put it this way, Apple puts some degree of responsibility & trust when it sells stuff to users compared to google which walks out of this in the name of open.
google made it open and termed it so because google simply doesn't want to go down the customer support path.
So it's anti-competitive to not promote a competing product in your own store. Is Amazon promoting iBooks or would allow the iBooks app on the Kindle? Because boy that sound anti-competitive.
One final time: No one is asking Apple to promote the Sony Reader app or the Kindle app. All we're asking is that Apple not ban the Sony app or force the Kindle app to make changes.
Apple has taken an unprecedented level of control over iOS apps. I'm dumbfounded that the lemming fanboys on here don't have a problem with it. If Apple tried these sort of stunts on OS X, I'd hope you'd have a problem with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla
Where did the notion that competition means you have the right to have whatever you want whenever you want where ever you want just because you want it. Apple does not have an obligation to supply you with something just because that is what you want.
What are you talking about? No one is demanding that Apple supply anything. We're just asking that they not prevent third-parties from providing goods and services that we want. For example, on Android, the Kindle app supports in-app purchases today. It's very easy to use and integrates with Amazon's payment system. Amazon could have similar functionality on iOS in a heartbeat if Apple would only let them. But Apple is using strong-arm tactics to force third-party developers to cripple their apps. That's anti-competitive.
That was my point too. I'm 2 for two, what are you exactly engaging on here???
Actually, you've failed completely to make a point. You've just made baseless insults about another platform.Your so-called evidence was a prototype that never shipped and a third-party app. Better brush up on your Google skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Swype is just a app, and it happens to be a rough copy of ShapeWriter which was out for iOS in the beginning of the App Store days. Hardly a novel feature when there were previous shipping versions more than a year prior to it even being possible on an Android phone.
It's not just an app. It's an input method. Android is extremely extensible. In this case, Swype is integrated into the OS as a plugin, something that's not possible on iOS. Although ShapeWriter is no longer available, even when it was, you had to run it as a separate app. You couldn't use it in any app that you like. That's just one example of the sort of heavy-handed behavior Apple demonstrates with iOS.
Comments
Found this on Gruber's site. I think it brings the whole "open" thing to it's conclusion.
Motorola Cliq XT Won?t Get Android 2.1 Upgrade ★
Christopher Trout: That?s OK, because Android is open. Cliq XT owners can just type ?mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make? and they?ll be all set.
ROFLOL - this is exactly the kind of crap the overwhelming majority of people don't want to deal with.
When are you clueless people going to stop calling Android "open" - it is FAR from being an open source platform.
You might want to have a look at http://source.android.com/ The source is available under an open-source license. Android is an open-source platform.
The Google apps (Gmail, Maps, Market, etc) are not part of the Android Open Source Platform, and are licensed separately from Google. See http://source.android.com/faqs.html and http://www.android.com/us/developer-...agreement.html.
People have hundreds of thousands of options (apps) for use on apple iOS devices and that in effect makes it just as "open".
This is a curious definition of open. Apple has enormous control over the development tools and distribution process for those apps. They can, and have, removed apps from the App Store on a whim, leaving developers and users with no recourse. That's hardly open.[/QUOTE]
That?s OK, because Android is open. Cliq XT owners can just type ?mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make? and they?ll be all set.
Probably not the owners, but the modders who build third party firmware, like CyanogenMod or rubiX.
I grow more and more concerned with our society with everyday that passes by. It's as if we are becoming a nation of sheep who want things closed off and controlled by a single entity. This is why I can't bring myself to buy an iPhone or iPad even though I've been a proud Mac owner for almost twelve years now. I'm seeing a shift towards a one-hundred percent Apple controlled system and I really hope this does not leech over into the Mac OS. If it does I will leave the platform/company and never look back. I know others within the company that also feel this way.
Seeing this many people wanting to completely ditch an open platform for one that is closed and notorious for it's over the top rules and bullshit really makes me sick. I would prefer to not be a tech-nation that is driven by the products of one company. I don't want any one entity to have that much direct influence on any given part of my day to day life, but it seems as though Apple is trying more and more everyday to creep into all of our live with more and more shit rules that we really dont need. Honestly, I'm going to violently smack the next person I hear talking about using the iPad as any kind of replacement for a standard desktop/notebook machine. This whole "I'm going to mandate what you can and can't do on your own shit because I made it" mentality is the exact opposite direction that any developing technology should be moving in.
The Mac OS will be controlled in this manor within three years and people will just lap it up because it's Apple. Mark my words.
Please don't feed the troll. The bolded passage in the first paragraph is the "I'm really a troll" statement. People that buy Apple products repeatedly for 12+ years do so exactly because of the vertical market. The trolls don't think that way, so they consistently bork it up by faking their "loyalty". As if "loyalty" even existed except in their minds. What the trolls don't get is that most Apple customers aren't buying because it's Apple as much as they are buying Apple because Apple is the ONLY manufacturer that Gets It in their chosen product spaces. I may have started with Apple hardware in '88, but I went Power Computing for awhile because they were superior and less expensive. I wanted to go Next, but it was pretty pricey and when I was finally ready it had lost too much steam. I'm pretty fickle a consumer, make it better and for less and I'll move in a heartbeat, and have. Seems nobody wants to though.
The rest is just camoflauge around a few standard troll topics. Openness and control. Again a complete missing of the point of a vertical market. So let them rant a couple times, and get out of breath, then let them slither back whence they came.
* How did Google copy iOS's soft keyboard?
Android keyboard circa 2006
Android keyboard circa 2010
Case. Closed. (Although we can see the keyboard <sarcasm>
improvements
</sarcasm>).
Please don't feed the troll. The bolded passage in the first paragraph is the "I'm really a troll" statement.
What a telling response. He raised some serious questions about the concentration of power and control in a single company. I've not seen a single reply on here make a good faith attempt to answer them. Instead, you dismiss him as a crank and a troll.
Are you going to defend Apple's App Store policies? Policies such as blocking apps because of content, preventing third-party payment schemes, or pulling apps after they're already approved? I'm curious to hear a defense of policies that allow apps like iFart, Drunken Sniper, iPoo, and Playboy, but disallow Google Voice, Sony Reader, NewToons, Android Magasinet, Wobble, and some (but not all) "adult-themed" apps.
I can understand if Apple chooses not to distribute certain content via its App Store (although it distributes far worse via iTunes and iBooks). My problem is that users don't have a choice. If Google chooses not to distribute an app via the Android Market, users can install the app from the developer's web site. On iOS, users have no such recourse.
To use an analogy from the physical world, imagine that I go to Best Buy and buy a DVD player. Best Buy might not sell a particular DVD title that I want, and that's certainly their prerogative. But I'm free to buy that content elsewhere (Target, Amazon, etc). Best Buy can't prevent me from shopping elsewhere, and they don't demand a cut of every DVD purchase I make. Why is Apple being given special treatment here?
Likewise, when major retailers refuse to distribute certain content (such as a CD with political lyrics or a controversial book), they are often (correctly) criticized for their censorship. Yet, I never see that sort of criticism of Apple's app store policies on this forum. I wonder why that is.
Case. Closed.
Hardly.
I believe your first image is from a prototype Android device. This is a screenshot of Android 1.5's soft keyboard:
You can see that it's very similar to the iOS keyboard.
Your second image is not the stock Android keyboard. It's Swype, a third-party keyboard. Swype lets users drag a finger across the keyboard, which many users report is faster and less error-prone than traditional soft keyboards. This is a novel feature and hardly constitutes copying the iOS keyboard.
Brian
There is a totally open way to put a program on an iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch with Apple's blessing but without the "restrictions." They are called web apps.
Web apps are a good way to side-step Apple's App Store policies, and to avoid per-platform apps, but they're not a complete solution. There are plenty of things you can't do from a web app, at least not yet. For example, using the camera or microphone, or querying the address book. There is still a need for native apps.
Apple implemented these App Store policies because it has 35 years of history dealing with people calling them when third party software brings their computers to a screeching halt.
I don't follow. Are you saying that a fart noise app is less likely to crash iOS than an app that displays political cartoons? That doesn't seem to make sense.
Have all your porn, political agendas, and fart apps. Just do not expect Apple to give support when it doesn't work.
No one is asking Apple to support third-party apps. We're just asking them not to block them and not to place such restrictions on their development. There are plenty of techniques that can be used to minimize the damage an app can do, such as running it inside a virtual machine or sandbox. Banning apps because they don't give Apple a cut of third-party financial transactions has nothing to do with app stability.
Web apps are a good way to side-step Apple's App Store policies, and to avoid per-platform apps, but they're not a complete solution. There are plenty of things you can't do from a web app, at least not yet. For example, using the camera or microphone, or querying the address book. There is still a need for native apps.
True although I do not want apps querying my address book except for the phone itself and I just use the camera app to take pictures. Works for me.
I don't follow. Are you saying that a fart noise app is less likely to crash iOS than an app that displays political cartoons? That doesn't seem to make sense.
No, I am saying crying censorship is BS.
No one is asking Apple to support third-party apps. We're just asking them not to block them and not to place such restrictions on their development. There are plenty of techniques that can be used to minimize the damage an app can do, such as running it inside a virtual machine or sandbox. Banning apps because they don't give Apple a cut of third-party financial transactions has nothing to do with app stability.
I disagree. I have had apps crash my iPhone so I do believe it is happening to other people and I bet at least 80% of them are not calling the developers they are calling Apple. And no Apple does not have to support Sony's eReader app that directs Apple's customers to a competing product in their App Store. Sony can crate a web app and promote and sell it on their own site. That is business in a free capitalistic society. They are not preventing Sony from competing they just should not be required to promote a competitor.
No one is asking Apple to support third-party apps. We're just asking them not to block them and not to place such restrictions on their development. There are plenty of techniques that can be used to minimize the damage an app can do, such as running it inside a virtual machine or sandbox. Banning apps because they don't give Apple a cut of third-party financial transactions has nothing to do with app stability.
They are not banning apps for offering a third-party payment system, they are only insisting that you also offer in-app payments (of which, Apple gets a cut). Some might prefer paying through iTunes rather than blasting their credit card info to each separate app provider.
No, I am saying crying censorship is BS.
It is censorship, plain as day.
I disagree. I have had apps crash my iPhone
This point is irrelevant. I never said that apps don't crash. My objection was to which apps are allowed in the store. The rest of your comment is speculation, unless you have some evidence to back it up.
Apple does not have to support Sony's eReader app that directs Apple's customers to a competing product in their App Store.
No one is asking Apple to support a third-party app. Neither are they asking Apple to promote a competing app. But there is a difference between not promoting it and banning it. Apple has created a double standard: Sony could create a web app, which would be crippled due to lack of APIs, or they build a native app and pay Apple a 30% cut. That sounds like "protection money" to me.
No one is asking Apple to support a third-party app. Neither are they asking Apple to promote a competing app. But there is a difference between not promoting it and banning it. Apple has created a double standard: Sony could create a web app, which would be crippled due to lack of APIs, or they build a native app and pay Apple a 30% cut. That sounds like "protection money" to me.
You keep misstating this. Apple only requires that you offer in-app payment in addition to your out-of-app payment.
True although I do not want apps querying my address book except for the phone itself and I just use the camera app to take pictures. Works for me.
No, I am saying crying censorship is BS.
I disagree. I have had apps crash my iPhone so I do believe it is happening to other people and I bet at least 80% of them are not calling the developers they are calling Apple. And no Apple does not have to support Sony's eReader app that directs Apple's customers to a competing product in their App Store. Sony can crate a web app and promote and sell it on their own site. That is business in a free capitalistic society. They are not preventing Sony from competing they just should not be required to promote a competitor.
It is censorship, plain as day.
Whatever.
This point is irrelevant. I never said that apps don't crash. My objection was to which apps are allowed in the store. The rest of your comment is speculation, unless you have some evidence to back it up.
I do have evidence. My everyday life when I am asked to help people when things go wrong with their devices that had nothing to do with Apple but the user blames Apple. Happens to me constantly because I am somewhat more tech savvy than most of the people around me.
No one is asking Apple to support a third-party app. Neither are they asking Apple to promote a competing app. But there is a difference between not promoting it and banning it. Apple has created a double standard: Sony could create a web app, which would be crippled due to lack of APIs, or they build a native app and pay Apple a 30% cut. That sounds like "protection money" to me.
If you do not accept that 90% of the purpose of the App Store is promotion then you can't be reasoned with. The app is not the competing product, what they are selling in the app is. If they do not like the 30% cut, raise the price the way every other product manufacturer does. That's like saying any retail operation should be selling other peoples products and not make any money to cover their expenses and commit the crime of maybe making a profit off it, which in Apples case isn't relatively much. If they are providing the "shelf space" and doing most of the promotion then they deserve a cut. Free enterprise ain't it a bitch.
Brian
Whatever.
Telling response. About what I expected from this forum.
If they are providing the "shelf space" and doing most of the promotion then they deserve a cut. Free enterprise ain't it a bitch.
It's not about promotion. Sony does a lot of promotion of their e-readers and bookstore, as do Amazon and B&N. They don't need (nor are they asking) Apple to do promotion for them. Similarly, they aren't asking RIM or Google to promote the Kindle or Nook apps.
This is about competition. Apple's policies are anti-competitive. Apple's iBook store can't cut it, so Apple changes the rules. It's stunts like this that make the FTC investigate Apple for anti-competitive behavior.
Telling response. About what I expected from this forum.
Then go somewhere else. I am not going to argue against the same tired old crap that most reasonable people agree are not legitimate complaints and no one is going to change their opinion on.
It's not about promotion. Sony does a lot of promotion of their e-readers and bookstore, as do Amazon and B&N. They don't need (nor are they asking) Apple to do promotion for them. Similarly, they aren't asking RIM or Google to promote the Kindle or Nook apps.
This is about competition. Apple's policies are anti-competitive. Apple's iBook store can't cut it, so Apple changes the rules. It's stunts like this that make the FTC investigate Apple for anti-competitive behavior.
So it's anti-competitive to not promote a competing product in your own store. Is Amazon promoting iBooks or would allow the iBooks app on the Kindle? Because boy that sound anti-competitive.
Where did the notion that competition means you have the right to have whatever you want whenever you want where ever you want just because you want it. Apple does not have an obligation to supply you with something just because that is what you want. If you do not like it then shop somewhere else. Take your ball and go home. And don't try to preach to people who prefer the Apple way. It is their preference and they do have a right to it.
Brian
Hardly.
I believe your first image is from a prototype Android device.
Duh, That's the whole point!
This is a screenshot of Android 1.5's soft keyboard:
You can see that it's very similar to the iOS keyboard.
That was my point too. I'm 2 for two, what are you exactly engaging on here???
Your second image is not the stock Android keyboard. It's Swype, a third-party keyboard. Swype lets users drag a finger across the keyboard, which many users report is faster and less error-prone than traditional soft keyboards. This is a novel feature and hardly constitutes copying the iOS keyboard.
Swype is just a app, and it happens to be a rough copy of ShapeWriter which was out for iOS in the beginning of the App Store days. Hardly a novel feature when there were previous shipping versions more than a year prior to it even being possible on an Android phone.
You might want to have a look at http://source.android.com/ The source is available under an open-source license. Android is an open-source platform.
The Google apps (Gmail, Maps, Market, etc) are not part of the Android Open Source Platform, and are licensed separately from Google. See http://source.android.com/faqs.html and http://www.android.com/us/developer-...agreement.html.
This is a curious definition of open. Apple has enormous control over the development tools and distribution process for those apps. They can, and have, removed apps from the App Store on a whim, leaving developers and users with no recourse. That's hardly open.
[/QUOTE]
Put it this way, Apple puts some degree of responsibility & trust when it sells stuff to users compared to google which walks out of this in the name of open.
google made it open and termed it so because google simply doesn't want to go down the customer support path.
So it's anti-competitive to not promote a competing product in your own store. Is Amazon promoting iBooks or would allow the iBooks app on the Kindle? Because boy that sound anti-competitive.
One final time: No one is asking Apple to promote the Sony Reader app or the Kindle app. All we're asking is that Apple not ban the Sony app or force the Kindle app to make changes.
Apple has taken an unprecedented level of control over iOS apps. I'm dumbfounded that the lemming fanboys on here don't have a problem with it. If Apple tried these sort of stunts on OS X, I'd hope you'd have a problem with it.
Where did the notion that competition means you have the right to have whatever you want whenever you want where ever you want just because you want it. Apple does not have an obligation to supply you with something just because that is what you want.
What are you talking about? No one is demanding that Apple supply anything. We're just asking that they not prevent third-parties from providing goods and services that we want. For example, on Android, the Kindle app supports in-app purchases today. It's very easy to use and integrates with Amazon's payment system. Amazon could have similar functionality on iOS in a heartbeat if Apple would only let them. But Apple is using strong-arm tactics to force third-party developers to cripple their apps. That's anti-competitive.
That was my point too. I'm 2 for two, what are you exactly engaging on here???
Actually, you've failed completely to make a point. You've just made baseless insults about another platform.Your so-called evidence was a prototype that never shipped and a third-party app. Better brush up on your Google skills.
Swype is just a app, and it happens to be a rough copy of ShapeWriter which was out for iOS in the beginning of the App Store days. Hardly a novel feature when there were previous shipping versions more than a year prior to it even being possible on an Android phone.
It's not just an app. It's an input method. Android is extremely extensible. In this case, Swype is integrated into the OS as a plugin, something that's not possible on iOS. Although ShapeWriter is no longer available, even when it was, you had to run it as a separate app. You couldn't use it in any app that you like. That's just one example of the sort of heavy-handed behavior Apple demonstrates with iOS.