Slashdot Mirror


Open Source Not Welcome At Palm App Catalog

davidmwilliams writes "It appears Palm is seeking to follow Apple's footsteps in gaining a reputation for inconsistent and spurious rejections and removals of iPhone and iPod Touch applications. In this case, Palm has resisted including a free application because the source code is attainable elsewhere."

48 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative
    From the article:

    In September Zawinski was called by Joe Hayashi from Palm, formerly Senior Director of Product Management for Yahoo!. Despite the treatment from Palm over this matter Hayashi said "We aren't asking that you remove the binaries or source of your apps from your web site, and we aren't restricting anyone from distributing their source code, open source license or otherwise."

    Yet the Palm SDK License (as linked to in the article) states under section 4. Developers' Ownership and Ability to Distribute its Applications:

    4.3 Applications Can Only Be Distributed Through the Palm Application Catalog. Developer acknowledges and agrees, that absent a separate written agreement with Palm, Developer may not distribute any Application except as allowed by Palm's formal approved distribution process and channel (the "Application Catalog"). Developer acknowledges and agrees that (a) distribution of Applications will be subject to further terms and conditions, which may include a share of the revenue generated from sale of the Applications to be paid to Palm by Developer, where such terms and conditions shall be presented to Developer upon or before Developer's request for distribution of any Application, (b) because of certain laws, regulations, as well as contractual or other restrictions, Palm may refuse to allow the distribution of certain types of Applications, and (c) distributed Applications may be viewable or inspectable by third parties, and Palm is not obligated to take any steps to obfuscate the code associated with the Applications or take any other steps to prevent third parties from viewing or inspecting Application code.

    Now this is assuming Jamie Zawinski used the SDK to produce the Palm Pre programs (I'm not sure what the Pre can run and these programs seem to be merely ports). After searching around for the terms of service for the application store for the Palm Pre, I came up pretty empty handed aside from the Developer SDK License. The fact that it says 'Beta' on the app store may make this forgivable but I'm not seeing a clear distinction on the fine details and legal on what you may or may not do when submitting an application. It appears there may be some internal conflicting views also -- considering what Hayashi said and what Palm did.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by Kasracer · · Score: 5, Informative

      This article is dumb. Palm is working hard on getting everything in line and many policies have evolved. They have ALREADY said they're working with the developer and that it's okay that the source is available.
      The App Catalog is still in beta so the latest terms, etc are not there. I don't even know why Slashdot accepted this article as it was already debunked and addressed by Palm.

    2. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by Icegryphon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe some people on Slashdot can't wait to get developing for the palm pre.
      But Palm has an uphill battle so it better get started on making a happy fanbase,
      The G1 and the iPhone already have a head start.

    3. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, and the best way to do this is not to become the control freaks that Apple are.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't even know why Slashdot accepted this article as it was already debunked and addressed by Palm.

      *gasp* jwz is GOD ALMIGHTY. Every move of his is WORTHY OF SCRIPTURE. Those denying any news about him to Slashdot are tantamount to HERETICS.

      Begone, sinner! A hundred XScreenSaver modules as penance! And it had better be downloaded through the original Mozilla browser!

    5. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by SmokeSerpent · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not the current developer agreement that you have to accept to submit applications. The developer agreement does include a clause allowing open source distribution as long as you do not distribute Palm's IP or charge a fee for that distribution.

      --
      All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
    6. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed, and the best way to do this is not to become the control freaks that Apple are.

      Maybe yes. Maybe No.

      "Tell me, do you know what this is?"

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by oblivionboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ah. The Palm appologist fanboys are already out in force. Jump all over Apple sure, but if its Palm then "Noooes, Palm is just working out kinks", despite strong evidence that internally the whole Pre developer program is riddled (and I mean riddled) with schitzoid internal behaviour from executives and others within Palm. And I haven't seen any sign that its improving.

    8. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

      They have ALREADY said they're working with the developer and that it's okay that the source is available.

      In private email, they did. And if you TFA (and the blog post), they said that "it's okay" before they released a new version of SDK, the license agreement for which explicitly states that it's not okay (which is the one linked from GP's post). So their position is at best unclear, and at worst - if you consider chronological order - they've rescinded their earlier words.

    9. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by sopssa · · Score: 2

      Modded as troll? Come on. Apple is control freak, iPhone is a really locked up device and you can only get software from their store. On top of that they do not approve any apps that they dont like, even if there wasn't any reason for it. Best example is Google Voice and how FTC started investigating it too.

      For that matter I like Windows Mobile. They will also roll out an official Store in 6.5 version, but you're still allowed to install any .cab you like and you are free to distribute your app elsewhere too, including it's source code. It's scary MS is actually supporting open source on phones more than it's competitors.

      Same thing with Symbian platform. You have to get a certificate for your app so it can be installed on devices. And they do not even have an official store.

      Hopefully Android will change some of that, but by far Windows Mobile has been the only actually open mobile OS.

    10. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Modded as troll? Come on. Apple is control freak, iPhone is a really locked up device and you can only get software from their store.

      The Pre and the G1 are already doing it 'the best way', according to you, and they're being left in the dust.

      I don't know if I would have modded your post 'troll', but it definitely wasn't very useful for doing much other than getting argued with by fanboys.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by metamatic · · Score: 3, Informative

      The developer agreement does include a clause allowing open source distribution as long as you do not distribute Palm's IP or charge a fee for that distribution.

      So it's still incompatible with the GPL, then.

      (GPL allows you to charge a fee, and doesn't allow you to impose additional restrictions on people such as prohibiting them from charging a fee.)

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    12. Re:Palm's Zawinski Contradicts Palm SDK License by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How is that incompatible?

      You write some code and GPL it. I take it and build it into an app. Palm tells me sure, I can put the app on their store, but I can't charge for it. If someone else takes my code and wants to charge a fee for it, they're free to do so.

      No incompatibility.

  2. Actual blog post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Actual blog post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good find. And now that I've RTFA, I disagree with the title of the /. post. It should be "jwz Doesn't Want to Follow Any of Palm's steps for Submissions, Equates Opening a Paypal Account with an Existentialist Nightmare, Even His LiveJournal Sycophants Call Him An Ass."

  3. Buzzwords by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it possible for people to submit a story without loading it with buzzwords (Apple, iPhone, etc.) just to increase the chances of it being posted despite the fact that the story isn't actually about Apple, the iPhone, or anything of the sort. It's about Palm. Sure, I know that new cool thing is to hate on Apple, the iPhone, iTunes, and the like, but this story isn't about any of that. Want to post a story about Apple, the iPhone, iTunes, and the problems associated with them? Go for it - submit the story. But, if your submitting something about Palm (or Microsoft or whatever), let's keep it focused on the actual subject of the submission.

    I know. I know. I must be new here...

    1. Re:Buzzwords by ElKry · · Score: 5, Funny

      You must be... oh.

    2. Re:Buzzwords by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Compare Slashdot now to Slashdot from five years ago and try to tell me it's not the cool new thing to hate on Apple. The difference in just five years is night and day. Success makes a company worthy of being hated even when they have nothing to do with the story at hand (same applies to Microsoft and now Google).

    3. Re:Buzzwords by webheaded · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey I've been hating Apple since WAY before it was the cool thing to do. I am now like all those douche bags that tell you how they totally loved that band way before you'd even heard of them, dude.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    4. Re:Buzzwords by pandrijeczko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, I know that new cool thing is to hate on Apple, the iPhone, iTunes, and the like

      I'm a middle-aged, overweight fat computer bloke that moans if he has to spend more than £8 (=$12) on a pair of jeans and listens to Jethro Tull in his spare time - believe me, I gave up on "cool" a long time ago...

      I just don't want you getting the impression that most people like or hate things because it's "cool" to do so. In 30+ years of working and playing with computers, I've never found a single reason to own anything or buy anything made by Apple and that isn't going to change any time soon.

      Yes, maybe if Apple were less proprietary and locked in than Microsoft, I might consider ditching both Windows and Linux for their products, but the fact is I don't like Apple because they charge far too much for something that looks nice yet doesn't let you do what you want with it... ...and my experience with most (but not all) Apple users is that they pay a premium price in order to join an exclusive little club where they are permitted to sneer at anyone who doesn't use Apple products without having any requirement to give any technical justifications for it. That, in turn, creates the anti-Apple backlash.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    5. Re:Buzzwords by samkass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You haven't looked very hard. Most Mac communities are accepting folks who would rather generate content than tinker with their machines, but otherwise don't particularly sneer at anyone or act exclusively that I've seen.

      Yes, maybe if Apple were less proprietary and locked in than Microsoft

      When's the last time you recompiled your Windows kernel from its open source distribution, like you can with MacOS? Or used a Microsoft browser's nightly builds?

      Anyway, I understand if you don't like the Mac or iPhone, but there's no reason to go around insulting those who do.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    6. Re:Buzzwords by Steffan · · Score: 2, Funny

      > by Red Flayer (890720) Alter Relationship on Thu October 01, 09:01 AM (#29606869) Journal
      >

      > > I'm a middle-aged, overweight fat computer bloke

      >You're posting on slashdot with a UID less than 890721 No need to restate an obvious truth.

      Nice! It took me a second to figure out what your benchmark was...

    7. Re:Buzzwords by jpmorgan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some people hate success. But success is also a powerful spotlight to illuminate a company's misdeeds.

      Apple receives a lot more attention, from a lot more sources than it did five years ago. Many of those new interested parties are a lot less willing to put up with Apple's shenanigans than its traditional fanbase.

    8. Re:Buzzwords by walshy007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      well... apple did a lot less things to piss people off five years ago, while the ipod was a success they weren't actively trying to kill anything and everything that could interact with it by any means possible like they are now.

      The only thing left still relatively 'free' in the sense you can do what you like with it is the mac computers, almost everything else they touch these days tends to have a horrible taint to it of 'you will not do what we do not want you to do'

      While I'm a linux user there was once upon a time I'd buy mac hardware just because of the build quality, but with recent shenanigans I just can't justify it... the perception of them has changed in the last five years, but for good reasons. (depending on your qualification of 'good') Almost everything they sell is in a walled garden, to protect you from *gasp* running something useful.

    9. Re:Buzzwords by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Previously, the Apple hate was technical in nature: "Oh, Macs don't have pre-emptive multitasking, Macs don't have protected memory, Macs don't have any CLI-- they must be toys you can't use for actual work!"

      (Which completely ignored the fact that back then, Apple's UI was *so much* better than Windows, Mac users were much more productive despite the lack of those OS features. Not as much now that Microsoft's UI people have more-or-less caught-up, and Apple's been making their OS less usable each version. Besides, it wasn't as if early Windows versions with pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory were immune to crashing or locking-up. But I digress...)

      Anyway, with OS X, all those old arguments have been torn away, so now the new generation of Apple haters have to focus on other things-- and their complaints have become, well, really petty-seeming. At least to me.

      Come to think of it, though, I used to know a Mac hater who's biggest criticism of the OS was that it rounded the corners of the screen instead of leaving them square. I can't imagine anything more petty than that.

    10. Re:Buzzwords by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Interesting

      well... apple did a lot less things to piss people off five years ago, while the ipod was a success they weren't actively trying to kill anything and everything that could interact with it by any means possible like they are now.

      For me it's simpler. Diehard apple fans were a lot less numerous. I don't think they are any more rabid than they were - but there are so many more of them, and so quick to tell us how "if this was mac it wouldn't.. " or "on mac this isn't a ..." or... or...

      I find the same attitude equally annoying from diehard linux fans, and diehard windows 7 fans. (I didn't see many windows fanatics before win7, not the way we do now.) There is no single operating system or platform that's a panacea. Stop trying so hard to convince everyone that yours is just that, because it just makes you sound like that annoying kid who plugs his hears and shouts "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

      Erm... oops, that looks suspiciously like a rant. But there you have it... the dirty core of my own distaste for [vocal] mac [people].

    11. Re:Buzzwords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When's the last time you *legally* installed your MacOS on hardware from any manufacturer other than Apple? Even with a few pseudo-open-source components, Apple is still vastly more "proprietary and locked in" than Microsoft (unless you are comparing Apple to Microsoft's console offerings, which, I guess, would actually be a pretty fair comparison).

      You seem to think that "proprietary and locked in" is insulting to Mac or iPhone users; if you don't like using the most "proprietary and locked in" systems available in their markets, use something else. Seriously, can you think of anything more "proprietary and locked in"?

    12. Re:Buzzwords by Draek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows? you compare Apple's products to Windows!? if there's a constant for Slashdot throughout the ages its been its complete devotion to UNIX. Which is why the Apple love was at its zenith two or three years ago, when Apple had an *usable* UNIX as an OS (rather than the bloated piece of shit that was 10.0) but hadn't started their current game of "let's cripple our own products for fun and profit". Or, at least it wasn't in full force yet.

      But yeah, while before the criticisms were mainly about what Apple *couldn't* do, these days it's about Apple *doesn't allow you* to do. It's switched from technical to legal, as a result of Apple keeping a walled garden by means of NIH syndrome to an army of well-paid lawyers writing draconian EULAs and pursuing frivolous lawsuits.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  4. It should only need to be said once... by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Palm, get your act together. Apple is "good enough," and the only way you can differentiate yourselves is by being substantially better. Treat developers like gold and get your story 100% consistent, unlike Apple, if you want to succeed.

    1. Re:It should only need to be said once... by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Palm, get your act together. Apple is "good enough," and the only way you can differentiate yourselves is by being substantially better. Treat developers like gold and get your story 100% consistent, unlike Apple, if you want to succeed.

      Market follower, get your act together. The market leader is "good enough," and the only way you can differentiate yourselves is by being substantially better. Treat providers like gold and get your story 100% consistent, unlike the market leader, if you want to succeed.

      Yep, it works.

    2. Re:It should only need to be said once... by jdgeorge · · Score: 3, Funny

      good enough, adj.: 1. Apple, Inc. 2. Various words people have used to describe Apple, Inc.

  5. Open source IS welcome at Palm by krid · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've released an open source password management app for webOS (http://www.precentral.net/homebrew-apps/keyring), and a rep from Palm contacted me to offer help in getting my app into the catalog. They have no issues with open source, and no problem with the code being available elsewhere. The problem here is that jwz got his panties in a twist, and he needs to take a few deep breaths.

  6. Ultimately Android by Bullfish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is going to grow up (it really is still stumbling along, show up on more phones and spread because the shenanigans of companies like this... When Android hits that critical mass and these companies start crying and whining about the implosion of their market share, I am going to laugh my ass off. While Google has punted some developers off their site, it's no where near what the other companies have done.

    1. Re:Ultimately Android by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with Android is it needs geeks to survive and Google seems to not welcome them. First off is the fact that your device must be "rooted" in order to have full control, really, all Google needed to do is provide some obscure command to root your device so the geeks can use the device how they wanted and the masses could be protected. Android isn't as shiny or as polished as WebOS or iPhone OS, it -needs- geeks to survive, but how does Google expect that to happen when they send takedown notices to Android modders?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Ultimately Android by Zencyde · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you not even paying attention to that issue? Google sent the C&D because Cyanogen was distributing applications that are sold with the Google Experience. It's not so much that the users aren't allowed to download it as much as it is the distributor lacks a method for verifying that the users have the appropriate license to acquire such content. In fact, some Google employees are assisting with the project at this point.

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    3. Re:Ultimately Android by mafian911 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I dont see why Google would be considered a control freak. Android is probably the most open mobile OS available. That is the premise behind Google's "Open Handset Alliance" after all. Considering the fact that you can put any application you want on the market, without fear of rejection (unless it gets reported, which is mostly a community decision), and the fact that their OS is open source itself, I think they've gotten pretty close to being truly open as it is. I don't blame Google for trying to protect the applications they require a license for. They really have done everything they can to make the platform otherwise open. I agree with Bullfish. I think Android is going to reach critical mass soon. In my opinion, it's the only phone that has a chance to close the gap between the iPhone and every other phone on the market.

    4. Re:Ultimately Android by Captain+Spam · · Score: 2, Informative

      Considering the fact that you can put any application you want on the market, without fear of rejection...

      I hate to be pedantic, but I'm in fact helping your case when I inform you that you don't even need to put it on the Marketplace if you choose; you can just point the browser to an .apk file hosted somewhere and the phone will offer to download and install it without problems (after you confirm you really want to do so).

      --
      Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
  7. Why bother developing for it then? by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously people, you're the authors not them. You choose what rights others are offered -- that's the goal of Open Source: Giving you the choice, not them. But if you want to make bad choices about your intellectual property, such as signing all your rights over to a greedy corporation, we're not going to stop you. I fail to see why we're even discussing this, beyond pointing out so everyone knows Palm is not a company worth developing for.

    If you're going to support open source, then do it already--stop complaining about companies that don't. In return, don't support them by buying their products. It's simple, really -- we like our freedom and we're willing to pay for it. Is there any other message we can realistically send as a community and have any credibility?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Why bother developing for it then? by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the main advantages to open source is the ease of portability. Some open source application can work fine on Windows, OS X, Linux, a hacked Wii, a smartphone, an obscure Linux powered device, and so on. If people keep using non-free applications you get vendor lock-in. Just look at IE and ActiveX, if ActiveX was used even more than it was back before Firefox became popular, we might still be forced to run IE in an emulator layer just to use the web. If you can get open source out on every single platform for free, especially the newer ones where people don't have to "un-learn" something to use them, it helps spread open standards and in the end a better computing world.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  8. Palm's only partially getting it by Spencerian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Palm is only partially getting the big picture of the iPhone's success. Admittedly, however, they're doing a better job of it than, say, the carriers supporting the Android initiative. The Pre is the closest thing to an "iPhone killer" out there.

    But Palm, you need the apps. Nay, you MUST bring the apps if you want your phone to begin to compete on Apple's multiple levels.

    I agree that the person involved in this Palm app flap is likely overreacting. And for the dweebs that don't seem to get it regarding Apple's vetting process for apps: Don't think the FCC wouldn't haul Apple to court (and the cell owners lynching any Apple employees they'd see) if Apple couldn't show that they've checked EVERY app they've allowed on their phone (and, as a result, into the international cell network) without reasonably ensuring that the app doesn't cause an individual's phone to die or, worse, infect the iPhone net (and others) with bad or malicious code that could compromise the cell networks. Sure, Apple seems sometimes political about the vetting (note a recent app about health care that Apple seemed to reject arbitrarily), but otherwise they're only hurting themselves if they don't allow most apps from being available.

    The iPhone is (as a fan and an owner) an fair phone but a very powerful and extensible mobile computer and Palm must match that functionality. The Pre is it's only decent competitor in terms of its relative features, OS and flexibility based on its carrier's desire to support the hardware without butchering it down for carrier-only apps (**cough**Verizon**cough).

    But the apps bring Palm only so far. They need a mechanism that isn't carrier marketing specific to support and augment the hardware features of your phone. For the iPhone, iTunes handles everything and fairly well. Palm must bring it's own iTunes-like PC/Mac application that handles syncs, mates with their new Amazon music initiative, can access their Palm app store, AND even (get this) use the approved Apple process for third-party iTunes library support that won't get them into trouble as they did with spoofing their hardware with iTunes itself.

    Right now, Palm is shooting themselves in the foot if they are rejecting apps for any reason other than gross obscenity or copyright/IP issues. They'll soon headshot themselves if they don't get even a modest competitor to iTunes running, in my humble Mac-consultant opinion.

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
  9. Lots of open source apps on there by darrenkopp · · Score: 3, Informative

    The twitter app i use (spaz) is open source and it's in the app catalog. and they were able to do it before the SDK was even available to the public. they got permission from palm.

  10. Slashdot getting weak by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 4, Informative

    C'mon /.
    Not only is this a rehash of an article posted before.
    It is pretty clear from that article that Palm is doing nothing remotely deserving this title. /. can and should do better.

  11. Overblown story by El+Royo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously... Palm does get it. They've hired two outstanding people to lead the developer relations (Ben Galbraith and Dion Almaer). They've already reached out to jwz, who just spit in their eye(s). This seems nothing more than an overgrown toddler having a tantrum because he doesn't get his way now. I wrote about this on my blog. I tried to keep it a somewhat balanced article but seriously, his actions since just make him seem petulant. Is Palm without reproach in this? No, they're going through the pains of releasing an app catalog, SDK and an app approval process all at once. Things aren't as smooth as they could be but they're nowhere near 'kafkaesque'. This certainly didn't warrant a slashdot post and certainly doesn't warrant two of them.

    --
    Author of Enyo: Up and Running from O'Reilly Media
    1. Re:Overblown story by El+Royo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      JWZ already describes in his post why it's not released yet. Palm is under no obligation to change all their rules to suit one person. He wouldn't agree to cooperate with any of their requests. Palm should probably create more open-source friendly submission requirements but their requirements during the beta period are what they are and if he wants it released now he needs to play by their current rules. If he wants to wait to see if the rules change, that's fine, too.

      --
      Author of Enyo: Up and Running from O'Reilly Media
  12. To be fair, panties were twisted by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem here is that jwz got his panties in a twist

    Actually if you read his original post, that is most certainly not the root problem. He had very valid reasons to be upset, and only posted a long rant when the whole process had gone beyond absurd.

    That said, as others have noted Palm has already stated they are clearing this up for him, and I really think Palm is trying to do the right thing in general - they just slipped up very badly here. But Palm has a history of treating developers well so I would cut them some slack now that they have addressed this problem.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. Moot point by sbeckstead · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Pre is not exactly selling like hot cakes. So does it really make a difference that they have nine million free programs that all the other phones have too. They should be looking to lock developers into exclusivity just to be able to differentiate from the other phones.

    1. Re:Moot point by sbeckstead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the news this week, due to weak Pre sales, Palm Inc, lays off workers. It did boost their stock price nicely though.

  14. Apple?? Control Freak? Really? by knarfling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are we talking the same Apple? You know, the ones who sell the iPod Nano? Just because they updated the firmware on the iPod Nano, so that a third party docking station (Which only has two functions. 1. Charge the iPod. 2. Provide speakers. That's it, nothing else.) stops working and the iPod Nano suddenly reports an "unsupported device found" is NO reason to think that Apple is in ANY way controlling. What possible reason could there be to call Apple a control freak?

    By the way, I understand that Apple has denied all rumours that they intend to come out with an Apple iCar specifically designed and approved as an authorized mobile listening accessory to the iPod and iPhone. The last I heard was that they were definitely not researching ways to seal the hood shut to prevent people from changing the iCar battery.

    --
    Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.