Slashdot Mirror
Lost In the Cloud
Colonel Korn writes "Harvard Law professor Jonathan Zittrain suggests in an Op-Ed piece that the seemingly inevitable move toward the often locked-down cloud is stifling innovation and threatening our privacy: '... many software developers who once would have been writing whatever they wanted for PCs are simply developing less adventurous, less subversive, less game-changing code under the watchful eyes of Facebook and Apple. If the market settles into a handful of gated cloud communities whose proprietors control the availability of new code, the time may come to ensure that their platforms do not discriminate. Such a demand could take many forms, from an outright regulatory requirement to a more subtle set of incentives — tax breaks or liability relief — that nudge companies to maintain the kind of openness that earlier allowed them a level playing field on which they could lure users from competing, mighty incumbents. We've only just begun to measure this problem, even as we fly directly into the cloud. That's not a reason to turn around. But we must make sure the cloud does not hinder the creation of revolutionary software that, like the Web itself, can seem esoteric at first but utterly necessary later.'"
Or, you know, developers could still write code that runs on one computer and do whatever they feel like doing.
Somehow, I don't think that Facebook is going to be the technology that drives computing forard...
Such a demand could take many forms, from an outright regulatory requirement to a more subtle set of incentives -- tax breaks or liability relief -- that nudge companies to maintain the kind of openness that earlier allowed them a level playing field on which they could lure users from competing, mighty incumbents
That is in a word, stupid. The thing about online services is, there is little requirements to entry and they are easy to change from one service to another. Its trivial for me to switch from Facebook to any number of different social networks. Same with search engines, etc. All it takes is simply replacing the URL. Regulation will only stifle innovation.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
the cloud is not taking over everything, not everyone is going to give up their computers for a network appliance that depends on the cloud to do anything and everything, the cloud will at best become useful for a few people but not everyone
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Let em' stifle all they want. Somebody else will make another cloud that doesn't stifle...or just build their own platform.
There will always be people, like me, that will not want to use cloud computing. I don't think we are surrendering our rights to the big corporations. This is needless worry and concern. You don't have to use Google Docs or Microsoft Office (when it goes cloud.) You can still choose to use Open Office or KOffice. If you care about privacy, you will avoid the cloud as much as possible. There will always be traditional developers writing software for the hard core users. Who knows, developers might create a cloud version of Open Office that you can deploy yourself.
Nothing suggests a desire for privacy quite like posting your personals all over the net.
I'm actually surprised at how quickly some of these platforms like the iPhone have developed completely closed programming environments with barely a peep of protest from the normally pretty libertarian tech crowd.
I'm not. The iPhone was not designed for wizards. It was designed for muggles. The tech community gave up on the slathering flesh-beasts that beat upon the keyboards of the world long ago...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
dont let it scare you, vote with your wallet and just dont buy Apple's shiney expensive crap, i dont own anything made by Apple
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Right, because anarchy has proven to work so terribly well already.
If doing something harmful is profitable, it will be done to the fullest possible extent without (and sometimes even) outright breaking the law. That includes trying to generate profit by making the market less free, hence monopolies and cartels. While it's fashionable in some circles to argue that the market is a panacea for all conceivable problems, that argument is so absurd on its face that it wouldn't be worth refuting if there weren't so many laissez-faire bobbleheads nodding gleefully every time some business model comes along touting anti-competitive practices dressed up as "innovation". Touting Facebook and iPhone apps as innovative -- seriously, Facebook apps? -- crosses the line from absurdity into actual comedy.
All regulation isn't bad. Remember that the next time you spout off some reactionary wisecrack and the regulations against assault and battery keep me from bashing you over the head with a sack full of iPhones.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Whereas on the iPhone, it's illegal to develop even a browser and anything you develop will have a 30% Apple tax slapped on it and there's no alternate means of *widespread* distribution.
Really? It's illegal>/i> to develop a browser for the iPhone? Can you point me to the state or federal statute that criminalized creating an iPhone browser?
*You're* "missing something crucial" in the GP's comment: it doesn't matter that Apple places so many rules and restrictions on those who want to play on the device and in the App Store. It doesn't matter because Apple can't force you to do any of this. You're free at any time to walk away and develop for a more open platform (like Windows Mobile, which is kind of hard to believe).
The iPhone is Apple's sandbox. They don't have to share it with us. They also tend to make decisions to protect us from ourselves. It might seem stupid to you that you (usually) can't develop iPhone apps that compete with Apple's own, but aside from that simply being one of their rules, they're trying to stop the platform from becoming a total mess.
If any old person could come along and write another browser, you'd wind up with all sorts of problems (I develop iPhone apps for a living - there ARE reasons for stopping people from doing this).
Right now, for example, the user experience is simple: tap a link and it opens in the browser. What happens when another browser is installed that usurps the browser's URL app handler, but also doesn't properly implement their own? You'd suddenly have droves of people whining about how "the" browser doesn't work. That's a big problem. Granted, even with different rules something like that would never make it to the App Store, but it's possible.
Or what if someone dveloped a Flash-capale browser? Apple has barred Flash (and similar tech) because of the cost to system resources of running the stuff. Battery life would go to crap, and it's entirely possible the device would overheat (if you think that sounds ridiculous, take a look at what Flash does to your *desktop* machine - the number one way I extend my MacBook's battery time is by closing all browser instances that are hosting Flash).
One of the major reasons the iPhone is such a great platform is that Apple *did* lock it down, ultimately making it easier to use and less problematic for your average user who's never going to think it was Flash that drained the battery.
As for the "Apple tax" - this one blows my mind. People need to think about this rather than just react.
If you wanted to sell an app in the past, you had to have a dev team, a support team, some kind of marketing department/plan, a means of distribution, and a way of getting shelf space (real or virtual).
Apple has made that process simple enough that anybody developing an app can do it - no teams required.
Apple's take is nothing. If you think a 70% take for the creator is unfair, then you've never tried to sell anything on a scale greater than a flea market or garage sale.
Apple is handling distribution, payment processing, some marketing, paying the bandwidth bill, all while making your app available to anyone with an iPhone. That's anything but unfair.
If you think you can get a better overall package elsewhere, then you can always try the jailbreak market, but that, despite all the "freedom", hasn't exactly taken off. Why I would pay $5 for an app I could get for $1 (or less) in the App Store is a mystery. I'm sure that'll change as more commercial offerings for jailbroken phones appear, but right now it's not so hot.
Also, the only "alternative" App Store that's getting any attention is, so far, basically just a cheap imitation of Apple's. Again, why that would be of value to me is a mystery. With the looser guidelines, the few things I've seen are either buggy or borderline useless. Like I said, it *will* change, but the alternative market's slow progress just shows how difficult it is to do something like the App Store, and to do it well.
Far from being a "jail", the out-of-the-box iPhone has kicked off tons of amazing work, in part because there is now a viable way to get your unusual app out there - one that never would have received so much support in the past (try getting some of the more esoteric, arty apps into Best Buy - on *any* platform).
Basically, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Whiner.
Good day.
Apple's take is nothing. If you think a 70% take for the creator is unfair, then you've never tried to sell anything on a scale greater than a flea market or garage sale. Apple is handling distribution, payment processing, some marketing, paying the bandwidth bill, all while making your app available to anyone with an iPhone. That's anything but unfair. If you think you can get a better overall package elsewhere, then you can always try the jailbreak market, but that, despite all the "freedom", hasn't exactly taken off. Why I would pay $5 for an app I could get for $1 (or less) in the App Store is a mystery. I'm sure that'll change as more commercial offerings for jailbroken phones appear, but right now it's not so hot.
Why not simply make it installable from a website(for eg. the developers) like, you know, the rest of the smartphones and computers and netbooks? That is the difference. There is no choice. If there is a choice and what you say about the App store being a great deal is true, developers will flock to Apple's offerings anyway. But looks like Apple just wants to take the 30% cut and be in control of the platform and is jumping through hoops and making developers jump through more just for the sake of it. The other reasons you state are secondary. Apple can as well give a proper stern warning before allowing unsigned apps to install and hence the blame won't be on them if users do.
Far from being a "jail", the out-of-the-box iPhone has kicked off tons of amazing work, in part because there is now a viable way to get your unusual app out there - one that never would have received so much support in the past (try getting some of the more esoteric, arty apps into Best Buy - on *any* platform).
Then just imagine how it would be if developer freedom was respected. How many more innovative programs could be developed?
Basically, you have no idea what you're talking about. Whiner. Good day.
Your reply started well but tapered off into something a little fanboyish at the end. :/ Good day to you too.
This space for rent.
Why not simply make it installable from a website(for eg. the developers) like, you know, the rest of the smartphones and computers and netbooks? That is the difference. There is no choice. If there is a choice and what you say about the App store being a great deal is true, developers will flock to Apple's offerings anyway.
Why would you want to have to run your own website and manage all the bandwidth bills and marketing when you can pay a pittance for Apple to do all that for you? Secondly, developers are flocking to the app store en masse. The 50,000+ apps on the store aren't coming out of someone's rectum so they clearly most have some sort of developer following.
I don't understand this reasoning at all. The developers can run their own website if they are so inclined or already have one. If not they use the App store to host. Forcing the developers to the App Store is one way to protect the 30% cut and prevent competition. How can you claim that the 50k+ applications show the strength of App store when there's no credible alternative at present? Cydia is not, because there are very few jailbroken iPhones.
This space for rent.
"Really? It's illegal>/i> to develop a browser for the iPhone? Can you point me to the state or federal statute that criminalized creating an iPhone browser?"
Hmm. Is it illegal to break a signed contract?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
iPhone have developed completely closed programming environments with barely a peep of protest from the normally pretty libertarian tech crowd.
Maybe because a substantial group of us don't really give a flying fuck about the iPhone (ooohhh shiny). Steve jobs can keep his overpriced iCandy, I don't need it. That being said it is Steve's platform and like so much else from the Cult of Mac; Steve gets the final say and doesn't have to explain himself to anyone. If you don't like that then don't write software for the iPhone or at least don't complain when Steve bricks your jailbroken phone or breaks your hacked apps. If you want an open source software libre phone then get a G1 instead and write software for that. No doubt the Cultists of Mac will waste no time in modding down this blasphemous post, but that doesn't make me wrong.