Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
" It creates a monopoly and severely hampers the system."
What monopoly? On their own devices? Read up on monopolies, they concern a market that includes ALL devices sold in that market.
"They restricted the use of third party tools for other motives. Cross compilers can easily create code better of better quality than some actual programmers. "
Prove those motives. You can't, because Apple has publicly stated their goals here, and you have no proof of your assertions.
Apple's statement clearly notes that you are wrong about code, too. It may produce better code than some developers, but that says little of a salutary nature about the programmers involved!
"The platform would NOT be held hostage to a third party."
Go back and reread Steve's statement. If a third party makes the software that you use to write apps for Apple's platform, and that third party, such as Adobe, fails to update that software to take advantage of new hardware features released by Apple for months if not years after those features are available, then they ARE being held hostage by that third party. that is specifically what Apple will no longer tolerate.
" If Apple updated the OS and it broke Flash, Flash will provide an update."
The iPhone and iPod touch have been out for three years, and Adobe has NO mobile Flash app for it. Want to try again?
Sorry, but Micro$oft WAS declared a monopoly by the courts. the point was, it was - illegally - leveraging its monopoly to force its own browser on the market at the expense of other browsers. That is an illegal use of monopoly power.
Apple isn't, by this move, forcing people to use only their apps on the platform but is forcing developers to develop software without an additional translation layer. Nothing says that they have to use APPLE'S software but the fact that theirs is the only development software out there that will do the job. There is nothing in the developer's license agreement to restrict them from using software that someone else may develop that creates software that fits the requirements without such a later. It merely disallows that additional layer.
Again, there is NOTHING in that license agreement that prevents a developer from developing for another platform, they are perfectly capable of creating the same apps for other platforms.
Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
No, his point IS valid. He said that the software on the platform doesn't belong to the user - a perfectly valid point in almost every EULA in the software industry.
Apple is restricting the installation of unsigned, unapproved software to keep malware off of the iPhone/iPad platforms, an attitude I wholeheartedly support that has nothing to do with whether I support Apple or not.
They have restricted the use of third party tools, not just Adobe tools, for perfectly reasonable technical reasons. Anybody that read other motives into Apple's statements about that is just blowing smoke.
Adobe software on the mac has been junk for ten years. Late, buggy and resource hogs, all of it. Even people that use it - ESPECIALLY people that use it - will tell you that.
Steve was right up front in telling the world that they don't want their platform being held hostage buy a third party - a perfectly honest position to take.
Considering the almost 200,000 apps in the app store, and the fact that Apple just can't make enough iPads, and are selling iPhones like hotcakes all over the world proves that the general public couldn't care less about this geek brouhaha.
But AOL was trying to be the gatekeeper for then entire internet, and there were alternatives.
The others just had products that may have been sufficient for the purpose, but were expensive and weren't really "good", they were just good enough. As soon as other, better systems came long, yes, they failed, but not to open systems, just better systems.
Apple isn't trying to be a gatekeeper to the internet. Their systems aren't just "good enough", but are stellar for the times. They attract attention, not because they are the only game in town, but they are just better damn products.
Others have tried to do the same thing, even Microsoft with all their billions, and have consistently failed. Why? Not because they were open or closed but because they offered poor customer experience. Apple's iPod wasn't closed, you could play songs on it bought from other online sources. Today, you can move songs bought in iTunes to other mp3 players.
Android has an open app store, but it hasn't taken off like the Apple app store did. Why? In part because of the huge numbers of devices that exist to buy from the Apple app store, but also because Apple's experience is better, and people notice.
Apple's app store isn't closed in the sense that only certain people can play. Anybody can plunk down that $99 developer's fee and play. Sure, you have to play by Apple's rules, but you can PLAY and are not prevented from doing just that. It IS closed in the sense that apps developed for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad only play on those devices. But Android has that same characteristic. The difference is that Apple is more strict in applying rules as to how those apps can be written, and they restrict certain content.
Those rules exist to enforce a user experience, and ensuring that experience is good for developers as well. The umbrella is wide and the sheer numbers of apps ranging from stupid to excellent shows that anybody CAN play, and a vibrant market exists to buy them.
I really think that as long as Apple has a superior product, as defined as their entire line of interconnected devices and eco-system, they will prosper. If they fail, it won't be because their system is closed, but because it is supplanted by a better alternative.
Neither IBM nor Sony have failed due to competition from open systems. They failed because a better product came along and supplanted them in the market.
AOL didn't fail because their competitors were "open" systems, they failed because they made bad business decisions regarding how they served their customers. Their competitors were also "closed", in the sense that everybody required customers to cough up money to play. AOL didn't prevent you from getting to the internet, they just cost too damn much and they failed to expand their physical plant fast enough to allow for a rapid expansion in the customer base of the industry, and customers had a bad experience with slow connections, dropped connections and frequent busy signals. They then failed to expand into DSL when it came along and people moved to ISP's that provided a faster connection.
Whether their system was "closed" or not had nothing to do with it.
" ...but competition in the market is making it more beneficial to start searching for a way to open it up."
Oh? Since when? Is Apple's market share slipping? Are the App Store's numbers dropping? Are developers abandoning it for Android? Are customers leaving in droves?
The answer to all those questions is a resounding NO.
Mike would LIKE for your statement to be correct, but it isn't. There is nothing in the current market to indicate that Apple's moves are bad for its business, in fact, they are correct for what Apple is trying to achieve, which is open standards across the web for all to be able to use equally. That is best for Apple, as is prevents other companies from negatively affecting Apple's use of the web as part of its eco-system.
But Mike doesn't understand how Apple's business model works. I know Mike is an advocate for open systems, I've read enough of his stuff, and usually agree with him.
But he has a blind spot with Apple.
Apple adhere's to open protocols and actively advocates for them, as with tcp/ip, open web protocols such as html5, etc. They always have, since these open protocols prevent monopolies such as Microsoft from turning the entire web into a proprietary mess.
What Apple is doing with the App store isn't violating those principles. The app store is Apple's store, they built it, they own it, they run it as part of their eco-system. As such, it has to support that structure, and letting someone like Adobe screw around with it through another proprietary product is insane.
IF Flash were an open standard, I'd agree with Mike, but it is not, it is owned, lock, stock and barrel by Adobe, so why isn't Mike dragging Adobe over the coals for dragging THEIR heels in bringing Flash up to modern standards to work properly with Apple's product?
Just because Flash is used by a large number of sites for ads doesn't make it a standard, it just makes it widespread, like Office, or Windows. Apple has every right to fight that in favor of open standards such as html5.
More crap about the supposed superiority of open systems, just because they're open, coupled with Mike's anti-Apple drivel.
Here's Daring Fireball:
Jean-Louis Gassée Gets It ★
Who, in his right mind, expects Steve Jobs to let Adobe (and other) cross-platform application development tools control his (I mean the iPhone OS) future? Cross-platform tools dangle the old “write once, run everywhere” promise. But, by being cross-platform, they don’t use, they erase “uncommon” features. To Apple, this is anathema as it wants apps developers to use, to promote its differentiation. It’s that simple. Losing differentiation is death by low margins. It’s that simple. It’s business. Apple is right to keep control of its platform’s future.
It really is that simple. That’s a perfect one-paragraph summary of the situation. His detailed analysis (and historical perspective — much of it first-person) is spot-on.
There are calmer minds, however. In his highly-recommended blog, Daring Fireball, John Gruber explains why Apple changed the iPhone OS licensing agreement. It’s strategic, really: Apple doesn’t want anyone else to have control over which OS features the applications have or don’t have access to. I’ll explain in a moment why it’s rational for Apple to fend off cross-compilers, and why it’s not too rational for Adobe employees and others to criticize Apple for keeping control of its future.
Now it's me again.
Not everything Apple does is some evil plot to screw the world. Apple makes a product (or a series of interconnected products) that require them to be pretty much Apple produced, and if someone makes a software product to work within that eco-system, they want them to use certain human interaction guidelines to keep the user experience as close to "Apple-like" as possible.
That does require them to exercise a certain amount of control. As a long time Apple customer (and shareholder of ten shares), I approve, since I have seen any number of crappily-written software packages that failed to adhere to those guidelines, and their experience sucked as a result.
Apple's control obsession isn't just for the sake of control, its there to protect their product and how it is experienced by their customers.
Apple's market share is growing. They own the over $1000 computer market, an they bring in 60% of the profits of the ENTIRE computer market. iPhone sales are still moving up, an the new iPad is selling like hotcakes.
If their business practices were as bad as you say, I doubt that any of those figures would be so good, but customers just don't seem to be bothered by Apple's failure to embrace your concepts of open systems.
They seem to like having a product that works as advertised.
More to the point, the government cannot FORCE the owner of that printing press to refuse to print your job. It is the right of the owner of the press to make that decision, NOT the government. And the DMCA sets up the conditions that force the owner to do that, so he is not making a free and open decision.
Thus, the DMCA is violating your free speech rights through prior restraint BY THE GOVERNMENT.
iPad's GOT a keyboard, and whether a device is touch or not has nothing at all to do with how easy it is to hack. Stupid statement. The iPhone has been jailbroken, and a recent hack for that is alleged to work with the iPad when it releases. We'll see.
There is not loss of function for the user on the iPad. It can be equipped with iWork, or a touch version of it, so there will be very little loss of function per se.
Lots of people use the touch keyboard on the iPhone, including me, and suffer little loss of function. It works fine, and the larger version of it on the iPad should work even better.
Perhaps you should actually USE it before criticizing it?
"The police said they searched the trash because they "thought" this person was doing something illegal and they didn't need a warrant because the stuff was being thrown away."
It's called "probable cause", and it is what allows the police to enter private property in pursuit of evidence in a crime. Besides, if the trash company is a public contractor, gathering that trash for the purpose of disposing of it under the aegis of the city/county government, it IS then public property, so there is no violation in that case.
As others have noted, the interpretive nature of the Constitution allows the SCOTUS to discern the existence of rights that are not explicitly mentioned by name, so just the simple lack of the words "right to privacy" is no argument as to its non-existence. There ARE cases where the SCOTUS has explicitly mentioned the existence of that right to privacy.
But that right is not unlimited, and the police DO have the ability to invade that privacy when the public's interest in law enforcement or public safety is paramount.
Also settled case law.
The key here is that little thing I mentioned called "probable cause". There must be evidence of criminal activity before the police are granted the right to violate that privacy, and in this case, there is no indication that the school had any such evidence before activating that software.
A school IS a government agency, so its employees ARE government agents. QED, they are limited by such constitutional provisions!
I would assert that a piece of government equipment, brought into your house voluntarily under the guise of one purpose, but then the government uses that equipment (using software you were not informed of) for other purposes, i.e., gathering intelligence of illegal or improper behavior for the purposes of punishing you for that behavior, then they've got a problem with illegal searches.