elijahg

crowley said:

Always seemed like a super niche feature anyway.

genovelle said:

neoncat said:

retrogusto said:

Let’s see a show of hands—how many would like to see a change in the way the App Store is run vs. how many would like to see a change in the way congress is run. 

And which would make a bigger and more positive impact?

I'll take your bait. Speaking only for myself, I'd be happy to see the entire App Store paradigm burned to the ground, and then burned again. But this reflects my own preferences. I am not so strident that I can't see how the structure, as it exists, serves a certain class of user quite well. 

The App Store paradigm is your company spends billions developing a store to offer safe goods of a certain quality. You set a fair price and allow others to profit off your creation. Greedy developers who want all the profits for themselves complain and even get government stooges to demand you give them your profit while continuing to invest in the platform. 

Your options are continue at a loss or shutdown development and invest those funds into a new venture with profit potential. The only loosers here will be the 99% of developers who this model as worked well for and real Apple supporters. Apple will cut bait just like they did with Newton and more recently IPod. Even though fans will want a continuance, a lack of profitability will determine its fate. 

At this point, the App Store as you know it is doomed. Not because there will be many ways to buy apps. More likely, there will only be ways to buy web apps but because Native 3rd party apps will go away and hundreds of thousands of developers will be unemployed over night. 

genovelle said:

xyzzy-xxx said:

Users should be able to load apps from alternative App Stores.
I guess that most users will stay with Apple's App Store, but it would make possible to use apps that have been banned by Apple or don't comply with some terms (like emulation).
If Apple makes this right (apps signed with a certificate and sandboxed) it should also be secure (beside from bugs in the sandbox).

They can load apps via web browsers. Why should Apple provide extended development and continued investment into an App Platform that they no longer own or profit from. They won’t. 

JWSC said:

As ridiculous as this stuff is, it’s not going away easily.  There’s a subculture out there that wants to bust the reigns of Apple management, sees an opening, and will do everything in their power to exploit it.  Where one attack fails, they’ll try another.  There’ll be a steep price to pay no matter which side comes out on top.

This will be another in a long series of tests that Tim Cook will have to face to prove he’s worth his pay.  And good luck.

mcdave said:

I guess on-device Siri came too late.

The main issue is that most people don’t use the on-device correction/re-training that Siri has provided for years. Siri should listen for the swearing/frustration then invite the user to help improve it understanding.