Towards a Permission-Based Web

On his blog over at RedMonk, analyst James Governor looks at the walled garden we seem to be moving into, and possible cracks in the wall. "As we rush to purchase Apple products and services on Cupertino’s monochrome treadmill of shiny shiny, I can’t help thinking the open web community is losing something vital — a commitment to net neutrality and platform openness. If a single company can decide what plays on the network and what does not, in arbitrary fashion, how can that be net neutrality? ... Is the AppStore a neutral network? Should it be? Is Comcast, the company net neutrality proponents love to hate, really the only company we should be wary of? Pipe level neutrality is surely only one layer of a stack. The wider market always chooses proprietary wrappers — every technology wave is co-opted by a master packager. Success in the IT industry has always been about packaging — doing the best job of packaging technologies as they emerge. Twas ever thus." Governor ends his essay with an optimistic look at Android, which he says "potentially fragments The Permission Based Web, and associated data ownership-based business models."

Comments

we care

[alain94040]

We on slashdot are pretty much the only ones who care about net neutrality. My dad(*) doesn't have a clue why it's important.

The App Store is the most flagrant example of non-neutral app built on top of the Internet. But if you were to push the argument further, I have restrictions on how many pictures I can upload on Flickr. Is that neutral?

(*) I'm using my dad as a stereotype instead of my mother because I recently learned that using mothers as examples of clueless users is sexist. So I'm applying some affirmative action

--
help build the web community where fans get involved with the bands they love

Re:we care

[sarahbau]

The App Store is a store, not a bazaar. They approve/deny products just as any store would. You don't see people complaining that they can't just open up a booth to sell their own CDs in the local record store. I'm a supporter of net neutrality, but why does everything that uses the internet have to be neutral? I take net neutrality to mean everyone has equal access to the internet, not that developers can sell apps on the App Store without going through the current process of getting approved.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you have no problem being ageist? Hypocrite :P

Re:we care

[Canazza]

Software service providers have all the rights to lock down their applications and pre. My only beef is when they start pressuring ISPs to do the things at their end in order to save themselves time and effort.

Re:we care

[SomeJoel]

My dad(*) doesn't have a clue why it's important.

What, so just because he's a man, he must be clueless? That's pretty sexist.

Re:we care

[supersloshy]

We on slashdot are pretty much the only ones who care about net neutrality. My dad(*) doesn't have a clue why it's important.

The App Store is the most flagrant example of non-neutral app built on top of the Internet. But if you were to push the argument further, I have restrictions on how many pictures I can upload on Flickr. Is that neutral?

Sure. There's lots of other sites where you can upload as many photos as you'd like. You're not restricted to using Flickr and Flickr alone like you are with the App Store. The App Store is the only "certified" place to download apple applications for iPod Touches/iPhones, while Flickr is one of many different sites that do the same thing.

Flickr's just trying to earn some money; is that wrong? I happen to like Flickr as it is and I'd gladly pay for more space if I needed it; or I could just use Imageshack or Photobucket or any of the other dozens of image hosts out there. With the App Store, you're "locked-in". See the difference?

Re:we care

[jpmorgan]

The App Store is not like a record store in a mall... in case you haven't noticed in real life you have choices.

The app store is like the state-run department store in some communist country, where everything is approved by the loving hand of the state lest you be exposed to anything counter-revolutionary. But don't worry, we have everything you need comrade! Ignore the capitalist scum, demanding freedom.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, because you were required to buy an iphone/ipod touch. There wasn't a million other choices you could have picked. Nope, it's Apple or nothing.

Re:we care

[maxume]

No, no, it's obviously because he is old.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

false. itunes is the only certified way to put music on the device (and even this is restrictive) but the music could come from any place.

Re:we care

[Rhaban]

Welcome in Apple world.

Re:we care

[peragrin]

AOL prodigy,compuserve, those are walled gardens. And they failed.

The app store is no different than barnes and noble online. You select items picked outby others and have them shipped.

You must learn to seperate the applications and services from thenetwork itself.

Re:we care

[spottedkangaroo]

Wrong. If you buy a car, you expect to be able to take it to your own mechanic. If you buy a phone, you expect to be able to put your own apps on it. This vendor lock-in BS is not acceptable. Did I buy the device or didn't I? Then how dare you tell me how I can use it.

I wish more people would choose to not buy those things. Fuck Apple.

Re:we care

[Philip K Dickhead]

Mother, may I make a call?

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it the case that you can't install any software except through the store? That does sound like a problem if that's the case.

But there ought to be some kind of repository that's been vetted in some way for security, compatibility, and possibly even general quality. My time is valuable to me, and I definitely don't have the time to try all the millions of clones of bejewled or whatever. If I want a game to play, I want to have only a few selections from each type. If I need a text editor, narrowing the field down to a small number of capable programs with clear differences is a service that has value to me.

I'm not saying that third parties shouldn't be able to sell their own software, only that offloading the product research onto someone else is useful.

Re:we care

[dissy]

While it is true Apple should be able to choose what to sell and what not to sell on their own store..

The actual complaint with the iTunes store is that Apple tries to prevent you from shopping at any other store to get software for the hardware you own (iPod touch/iPhone specific there really)

That is the neutrality issue in that specific case.

The music side of the store is fine. You can get MP3s anywhere. You can put your MP3s from anywhere on your Apple devices, No issue.

Without jailbreaking (Something Apple hasn't stated is OK to do, and has at least implied it is NOT OK to do) you can't load software of your choosing on your own hardware, only software Apple deems worthy to sell on their store.

That is the issue.

Re:we care

[Dog-Cow]

Walking into a room and locking the door isn't being "locked in". Apple has not pulled a bait-and-switch. Everyone is free to know exactly what they are buying before they do so. There's absolutely nothing morally wrong about what Apple has done.

You are all full of hate.

Re:we care

[Scrameustache]

(*) I'm using my dad as a stereotype instead of my mother because I recently learned that using mothers as examples of clueless users is sexist. So I'm

Being ageist instead? Not much of an improvement, if you ask me... but if you ask a broad, she'll say otherwise ;-)

Re:we care

[Dog-Cow]

But then they wouldn't be able to demonstrate their senseless hatred.

Re:we care

[wall0159]

Yup there's nothing wrong with the appstore - it's the iPhone that's crippled.

Re:we care

[Nerdfest]

What if I'd like to buy my apps from Borders?

Re:we care

[rsborg]

If you buy a phone, you expect to be able to put your own apps on it.

Your analogy breaks down right there. When I moved from my Treo 600 to an iPhone, I didn't expect to be able to move my apps/games with me. Neither if I moved to a blackberry. Sure there will be some great devs who do cross-platform stuff (PopCap: Bookworm), but that's because they take the time and effort to write it in different platforms

The iPhone is NOT a car. You can't die by using a phone, and the phone industry is not nearly as regulated as the auto industry.

In short, I have NO expectation that I should be able to move my apps from one platform to another, willy-nilly. Maybe if everything was copyleft'd and we were all using ports-capable OS's, sure. But I have no expectation of that any time soon.

Re:we care

[Garridan]

....but... I've never bought an Apple product in my life. Well, my wife has an iPod nano, but she uses MP3s she's ripped from CDs, and she doesn't use the iStore. I've never sought Apple's permission to do anything online. I'm failing to see the problem here.

Re:we care

[edmicman]

I dunno, I buy all of my music from Amazon via MP3 or used CDs. I don't use iTunes, and since I can't even search their store to see what they have without installing the software, I don't mess with it. From what I've heard Amazon seems to usually have better prices anyway - my wife was looking at a song on iTunes for $1.29, whereas I could get it for $.99. We don't have choice?

Re:we care

[natehoy]

Precisely. In real life, I have choices. Which is why I'm using a Blackberry. Apple offered the velvet handcuffs, and I declined. It was real life, and I had choices.

Apple has a monopoly on iPhones like Toyota has a monopoly on the Camry. Apple does not have any more of a monopoly over the SMARTPhone market than Toyota has a monopoly on the 4-door sedan market.

The iPhone comes with a free exclusive lockdown to the App Store, unless you jailbreak it. It's part of the deal. iPhone buyers know this going in, and if they don't they need to educate themselves on what they are buying before they sign for a 2-year contract and plunk down the bucks.

It would be nice if the App Store was a neutral network, but it's not. It's a business, designed specifically to cater to a willing customer base who knew how Cupertino feels about their product - that no one can sully/enhance it with features they didn't intend to be there in the first place.

Re:we care

[phorest]

And like any state run enterprise they'll implode under their own weight. Case in point: Apple touts 100,000 apps. When my local fox affiliate feels the need to publish an app to access their site or Nationwide Insurance publishes an app to post a claim for your latest wreck, why have an "app for that" at all? I thought that's what the internet was for. Why wall it off?
To me it's just silly...

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the car analogy disingenuous at best.

If I buy a Ford, I can't start throwing SAAB suspension parts and Volkswagon exchaust with a Honda engine in it. Doesn't work like that.

You chose to buy the product, and thus you chose to limit yourself to a particular mechanic. You locked yourself in, not Apple. And as long as Apple isn't telling ISPs to stop users from connecting to the Zune store, or eMusic, or Napster, or any other download service.

As far as apps? Tell me I can put T-Mobile software onto a Verizon phone. iPhone is no different than any other provider who sells apps for their devices. They've just done it better than, say, Motorola.

Re:we care

[natehoy]

I wish more people would choose to not buy those things.

Precisely. You don't like the lockdown and you wish people chose not to buy it. That's your right.

But.. people DO choose to buy these things, knowing that Apple can be real assholes about controlling what you've bought from them. Not only do they choose them, they get in long lines and pay outrageous amounts of money for it.

But, in the end, they are choosing. Which means there's a free market out there - you can buy an Android, or a Blackberry, or a -- god, there are hundreds of smartphones out there, just pick one.

And most of the other vendors are pretty good about apps. Blackberry has their own (thinly-veiled clone of the Apple) app store, but I can also install software directly from the authors and/or download it and install it from my desktop. I'm not tied to it. And I have yet to download anything on my Blackberry that AT&T has told me I cannot use.

Re:we care

[Nerdposeur]

That's one reason why I really like my Android phone (HTC Hero). There's an App Store, but I also have control over whether to allow apps from other sources. (And I think that the App Store itself is much less controlled.)

Plus, apps can fundamentally change how the device works. You can customize the heck out of this phone. But it's still very slick and has a beautiful UI.

I think Android is going to gain a ton of traction with users soon. It should, anyway. It rocks.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

false. itunes is the only certified way to put music on the device (and even this is restrictive) but the music could come from any place.

Whoever taught you how to read needs to be slapped. Hard. Multiple times. In the face.

The GP was clearly talking about apps. Didn't you think it strange that he didn't mention music anyplace? That's because he isn't talking about music. I know, I know, it takes amazing skill to recognize that on your own doesn't it?

I wish you were logged in, just so we'd know who to make fun of.

Posted with a proxy because 10 minutes is a more than reasonable time to have to wait between posts. "You must wait a little while before using this resource" actually no I don't need to. I think 10 min is a good wait time, if Slashdot disagrees I'll work around Slashdot. Simple.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the car analogy disingenuous at best.

If I buy a Ford, I can't start throwing SAAB suspension parts and Volkswagon exchaust with a Honda engine in it. Doesn't work like that.

You chose to buy the product, and thus you chose to limit yourself to a particular mechanic. You locked yourself in, not Apple. And as long as Apple isn't telling ISPs to stop users from connecting to the Zune store, or eMusic, or Napster, or any other download service.

As far as apps? Tell me I can put T-Mobile software onto a Verizon phone. iPhone is no different than any other provider who sells apps for their devices. They've just done it better than, say, Motorola.

(posted in the wrong nesting, initially)

Re:we care

[Hatta]

We on slashdot are pretty much the only ones who care about net neutrality. My dad(*) doesn't have a clue why it's important.

It's pretty easy to explain with analogies. "Imagine if Amazon bought UPS and gave itself free shipping, while jacking up the rates for its competitors. We have a choice in shipping providers of course, but we can't use a different internet. So imagine that UPS was our only choice for shipping. Amazon would have an unfair advantage right? Could a free market operate under such conditions?"

The App Store is the most flagrant example of non-neutral app built on top of the Internet

It is nonsensical to talk about network neutrality for a service that is not a network.

Re:we care

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

But your argument breaks down here: Had you not bought the iPhone, you wouldn't have to buy from the iTMS. Everybody is bashing apple for the whole app store thing, but let me see if I can explain something.

Apple has contracts with ATT and the fellow app makers. Remember the Google Voice app rejection? Ever consider that apple had a contract with ATT that prevented them from allowing alternate voice apps to run on the iPhone? Jailbreaking assists in piracy (I'm not saying that if you jailbreak, you pirate) Out of respect for their app developers, they should try to fight piracy.

This isn't a black and white issue

Re:we care

[david_thornley]

If you buy a phone, you expect to be able to put your own apps on it.

I really, really doubt this is predominantly true even on Slashdot. At least 99% of the general population doesn't have their own apps in any way, shape, or form. Most phones don't have any way to host any sort of app that isn't burned into the ROM.

Besides, if you feel that way about your iPhone, jailbreak it. You can put your own apps on it, you just can't do it the Apple-approved way.

Re:we care

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The App Store is a store, not a bazaar.

No, no,no,no,no. The App Store is itself just a single part of a greater, more restrictive whole. A central part, but only a component in a greater scheme.

With the iPod and now the iPhone, Apple have achieved a level of control over their hardware and their users that hitherto has been enjoyed only by video game console manufacturers (an important case study in walled gardens). Apple, Microsoft and Sony sell not only locked down consoles with the ability to run only certified binaries, they also sell (by now essential) access to a wide yet corralled network without which their devices are severely limited. Access to this network is at the sole pleasure of the company. On it, you operate by their rules. You go only where they want, do only what they want you to do and if you displease them in any way, if off you go and your device is as good as bricked.

In fact, these companies retain the ability to brick any device they like at will, and rescind any rights, or remove any programs that their users currently enjoy. Remember the Baby Shake app? That was taken off the App Store. But, if the media furore had become heated enough, Apple in theory has the ability to remove the application from every iPhone on their network, or at least force the program to be patched.

The worst part of this is just how eagerly people have accepted these walled gardens and all they entail. In return for some flashy applications and a shiny white case, people have literally gone from owning devices to merely paying for services. Normal PC users are not immune. Application and network packages like Steam take control away from users and hold them compliant under threat of expulsion from the garden. Blizzard went so far as to mandate that users install monitoring software on their own PCs to play World of Warcraft, effectively declairing that Blizzard had a right to do as it pleased on a computer it didn't even own.

What companies want is simple. Control. Control over their IP, control over user and their behavior, control over how and where their services and products can be used. Given this control, they will abuse it. The trouble is, people seem more than happy to give it to them.

Re:we care

[Interoperable]

Another problem arises when ISPs offer content as well as connectivity. Once ISPs start to offer cloud computing services locally will they offer equal traffic priority to their own services as to more distant services? Why would they bother? It's cheaper for them if you send a GB of data that stops in their server room rather than getting transmitted over a backbone to a remote server. If it costs less per GB to download music from your ISP will they charge the same rate as for a GB of music from iTunes. Or will they locally cache iTunes databases and prioritize traffic to them over traffic to other music stores that don't have contracts with the ISPs?

I feel that as long as content and distribution remain distinct, there will some self-regulation with a few exceptions. Once cloud computing and cloud storage become prevalent, I suspect that ISPs will start offering local services or at least local caches; at that point we might be in trouble. Of course, then cloud services will become another distinction between ISPs and may provide another opportunity for independents (assuming the independents live that long).

Re:we care

[BobMcD]

Apple has contracts with ATT and the fellow app makers. Remember the Google Voice app rejection? Ever consider that apple had a contract with ATT that prevented them from allowing alternate voice apps to run on the iPhone? Jailbreaking assists in piracy (I'm not saying that if you jailbreak, you pirate) Out of respect for their app developers, they should try to fight piracy.

What gives Apple the right to enter into contracts which restrict my behavior? And whatever it is, do we really have to live in a society that tolerates that?

Re:we care

[FritoP]

Wow, you really are a dumbass. Sorry, but our society has developed laws and contracts which can extend beyond the fact that you have a piece of plastic in your hand. This is why you can't write your name on the front of a book you bought at Barnes and Noble and sell it as your own, even though you bought the book.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I buy a Ford, I can't start throwing SAAB suspension parts and Volkswagon exchaust with a Honda engine in it. Doesn't work like that."

Don't be a retard. That's a technical limitation. What we are discussing is Apple's business policy decision to impose limits. Do they have right to impose limits on their customers in order to protect their own business? Yes. Is it retarded? Also yes.

Re:we care

[BobMcD]

Apple has not pulled a bait-and-switch.

True.

Everyone is free to know exactly what they are buying before they do so.

True, but only due to your verbosity. Modify that to 'Everyone knows' and it suddenly becomes false. It isn't as if it is necessarily easy to know. There isn't some kind of disclaimer that Apple provides letting everyone know the door won't open from the inside. They simply say 'we have an app for that' and invite everyone inside. The factually correct statement would probably be 'we might have an app for that'.

There's absolutely nothing morally wrong about what Apple has done.

This is probably false, particularly because you used the word 'absolutely'. Do you know, for certain, that Apple is not restricting user freedom purely out of a desire to increase their own profits? Because if there is any conceivable way for Apple to both profit AND allow freedom, then we're in a territory that is at LEAST morally gray.

Re:we care

[Sandbags]

Dead on right. It;s not about wether or not apple chooses what they carry, its about wether Time Warner throttles downloads from apple while supporting higher bandwidth from their own competing marketplace, and those of partners who pay them for the same privilidge. ...or for Verizon restricting feeds from Hulu that compete with their Fios offerings, or make Vonaage VoIP choppy while there own is crystal clear...

it's not who is on the internet that needs to be nutral, its the 3rd party folks in the middle shaping traffic that need to be watched by multiple cameras in multiple spectrums 24x7x365.25.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual complaint with the iTunes store is that Apple tries to prevent you from shopping at any other store to get software for the hardware you own (iPod touch/iPhone specific there really)

That is the neutrality issue in that specific case.

The restrictions of the App Store are not hidden, and are part of the decision about trade offs that is needed to be made about an iPhone / iPod touch.

Car analogy: If a car manufacturer says you're only allowed to go to them for maintenance, you should think about purchasing it if it's going to be a big deal for you. If you purchase the car and want to get maintenance elsewhere you shouldn't bitch about it since you were told ahead of time. If you do get your oil changed elsewhere (i.e., like jail breaking) don't complain when it voids your warranty.

It is your hardware, and you can do whatever you want with it--including jail breaking it to get "unofficial" software on it. But once you break the seal don't moan about not being supported.

You knew the risks going it. If you want 'free as in speech' get a Linux-based device with an open SDK. Apple closed solutions so it's should be a surprise when things are... closed.

Re:we care

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Did I buy the device or didn't I? Then how dare you tell me how I can use it.

Is that their fault, or yours for not learning what you were getting before you got it? Me, I'd just go with "don't buy it in the first place" -- there's nothing I need in the app store. Some things I might want, but certainly not enough to lay down that much cash for a restricted device. If I did cave in and buy it, I sure as hell wouldn't blame anyone for the consequences of my decision except me.

For your *cough* great car example, it's more like buying a car and signing an agreement up front that only manufacturer-approved parts may be used in your car, or else you void the warranty.

Re:we care

[orasio]

The App Store is not like a record store in a mall... in case you haven't noticed in real life you have choices.

The app store is like the state-run department store in some communist country, where everything is approved by the loving hand of the state lest you be exposed to anything counter-revolutionary. But don't worry, we have everything you need comrade! Ignore the capitalist scum, demanding freedom.

You talk about a typical capitalist monopoly and get confused by saying that it is somehow like a communist regime. The computer industry is capitalism at its best, with its pros and its cons.
A totalitarian regime would either not let you access the store, or give you everything preloaded, and pushed by the central administration.
The communist (not sovietic, Marx-style communist), version of the apple store would be more like a only GPLv3 wiki-store where you have to pay apps with code or testing.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately the issue here is not that they pick and choose what to sell, it's that you can't just provide applications for people willy-nilly, they have to be approved. Sure, if you go into a computer store they're probably not going to sell lots of brands of software, on the grounds that it's puerile, offensive and so on. Does that stop you from installing it or using it on your system? No of course it doesn't, you'd just buy it from somewhere else.

Filtering content is not the inherent problem here, it's that you don't even get to make up your own mind. Companies have a right to filter what they sell, but if you buy a device that can run applications coded by 3rd parties then short of blatantly illegal applications, they shouldn't be able to stop you (even if it meant voiding a warranty if you bricked your phone).

Re:we care

[ragefan]

Your car analogy is wrong, because while you can choose what mechanic you have work on it, you are still limited to which replacement parts fit on your car. You can not just walk into an auto parts store and say "Hand me the closest alternator on the shelf, that's the one *I* want use", and expect that it will work.

Re:we care

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

With the App Store, you're "locked-in". See the difference?

No. Because there are many other devices out there that aren't the iPhone. In the same way that there are many other photo services. You have a choice that you make when you purchase your phone. If you choose iPhone, then you also choose and accept these restrictions. It's perfectly within the company's rights to impose them, if you sign the dotted line to accept them.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

"What gives Apple the right to enter into contracts which restrict my behavior?"

The fact that this is how contracts fundamentally work, perhaps?

No one made you buy Apple products. The argument ends right there.

"do we really have to live in a society that tolerates that?"

Yes, we do. You are not entitled to an iPhone nor obligated to purchase one. Apple is not obligated to make them available to you on your terms. Welcome to the free market -- it's a fun place once you learn how it actually works.

Re:we care

[dzfoo]

Wrong, the App Store is like a big box mall with a giant Wal-Mart and name-brand stores, surrounded by teeny mom-and-pop shops. Sure, everyone can buy at the mom-and-pop shop if they like, but is it really Wal-Mart's fault (or the mall's owners) that people like to shop at Wal-Mart or, say, Abercrombie & Fitch?

Moreover, should Abercrombie & Fitch be forced to sell, say, clown shoes just because some clowns can't find a suitable novelty shoe store in the mall and are too lazy or incompetent to look for one elsewhere?

The point is that nobody is forced to use an iPhone--it is far from the only alternative that is out there. So, some people like it enough to purchase and use it, but wish the vendor operated in a different way? Easy, complain to them with your dollars.

What that's? Nobody in the real world (i.e. outside the tech circles) cares enough to complain and just keeps on using the devices? Well, boo-hoo.

        -dZ.

Re:we care

[cabjf]

Do customers have the freedom to go elsewhere if those business limitations bother them? Yes. Will nerds on the internet continue to complain that company xyz isn't free and open enough for their taste and therefore an inferior choice for everyone? Also yes.

If Apple starts losing enough customers of the openness of their platform, then it's their decision to make changes or not. That's pretty much how an open market with competition works.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

A technical limitation that was purposefully imposed in order to protect the business of each car manufacturer. Sure they could decide to standardize all the parts, and allow people to purchase from any vendor... But then they'd risk losing their customers to the competition.

I don't see the disconnect here. Apple is within its rights to lock down its own devices in order to provide a uniform, quality experience. Same as MS has the ability and right to do.

Preventing people from using other devices is an issue, but once you purchase a device, you purchase it with the understandings of its limitations, arbitrarily imposed or otherwise. It's a consumer decision, not some evil corporation locking of the rest of the world to you.

Re:we care

[ajs]

Apple has contracts with ATT and the fellow app makers.

What gives Apple the right to enter into contracts which restrict my behavior? And whatever it is, do we really have to live in a society that tolerates that?

If you bought an iPhone, you did.

The concern with respect to Net Neutrality is that you can't just go use a different Internet. If all of the major backbone providers collude to set pricing for access to their market of users then the consumer has no recourse as building a new backbone is insanely expensive, and arguably couldn't be done again from scratch without the backing of a major government.

On the other hand, you can go buy an Android phone any time you want.

You can choose the restrictive provider or the permissive one. If you choose the restrictive provider and then complain about their being restrictive, then you're either not paying attention or just looking for an argument (that's down the hall on the right).

Re:we care

[dzfoo]

Wrong again, but thanks for playing.

If you buy a car, you surely expect such liberty. Nobody is under such delusions when purchasing an iPhone--they know it comes with a few apps, and they know they can go to the AppStore and purchase what's there.

It's funny, really: there was a time (barely a few years ago) when most of the tech press laughed out loud at the iPhone for being nothing more than a mere toy. There was a void in the market and Apple filled it--apparently successfully enough that people enjoy purchasing and using the product in spite of the limitations once derided by the press.

Now the same people are complaining Apple is locking them into it's own proprietary formats and product selections, when it did so from the very beginning--you know, way before they decided that the toy was actually quite nifty, and bought one.

        -dZ.

Re:we care

[fahrbot-bot]

You are all full of hate.

Actually, that "iHate" and there's an app for that. However, since "iHate" is only available through the AppStore, the user experience is paradoxical...

Re:we care

[Sandbags]

What? you expect your phone to be completely open??? Shit, had an LG from Verizon the ON THE FUCKING BOX (Verizon's own box with their own logos) indicated the hpone offered a connection kit, bluetooth sync and more. Those were LG's specs for the device, but Verizon DISABLED all those features. If I took a picture with the integrated camera, i could not get it to my PC in any way other that paying verizon a charge per image for the transfer. Sprint was WORSE with a moto i had from them.

Apple has an open development system. There are just simple rules. 85,000 apps, about 10,000 good ones, all in one place, most $5 or less. Just simple: don't violate trademarks, don't duplicate generic device functionality, play in your own snadbox, don't cause security issues. And you know what? most of the rules are not APPLE'S rules, but AT&T and the other providers, since the iPhone was the first device capable of half this shit.

Oh, and you forget, web apps are wide open.

Oh, and that car you bought, while it's under warranty, you can only take it to AUTHORIZED repair centers. Once the warrty is out, you're on your own. Apple is the same way; either pay to unlock it, wait your 2 years, or simply jailbreak... Do whatever you want, but no warranty if you do.

Vendor lock in? I tell you what, I'd rather have a "restrictive" app market on a stable device I like holding in my hand for which under heavy use I get a full day's battery, and continual free software upgrades, vs an Android where the apps are limited, buggy, expensive, and suck the phone dry in 4-6 hours.

Re:we care

[TerranFury]

You are all full of hate.

What. The. Fuck.

The people who killed Matthew Shepard were full of hate. The KKK is full of hate. Supersloshy just doesn't like that the iPhone allows apps from the Apple app store and nowhere else.

You make it sound like if you don't like the iPhone you're some kind of bigot dreaming of Apple Auschwitz.

Re:we care

[plague3106]

(*) I'm using my dad as a stereotype instead of my mother because I recently learned that using mothers as examples of clueless users is sexist. So I'm applying some affirmative action

Quite frankly, this over-sensitive horseshit is much more of a problem than whether or not a song appears on iTunes.

Re:we care

[plague3106]

Get a fucking clue ass. It's called an MP3, and you can easily import them into iTunes so they'll end up on your iPod... all without conversion. No one is telling you what to do with your device.

Re:we care

[ajs]

With the iPod and now the iPhone, Apple have achieved a level of control over their hardware and their users that hitherto has been enjoyed only by video game console manufacturers

Oh wait, I think you forgot one... what about hand-held calculators? Oh and DVRs. Oh and in-dash nav systems, every non-Android cell phone ever made, digital cameras, all modern cars, planes and other vehicles, HDTVs, and ... well, everything with a CPU that isn't a general-purpose computer or Android phone.

General purpose computers are far and away the exception to the rule when it comes to control of installed software.

Re:we care

[10101001 10101001]

Your analogy breaks down right there. When I moved from my Treo 600 to an iPhone, I didn't expect to be able to move my apps/games with me. Neither if I moved to a blackberry. Sure there will be some great devs who do cross-platform stuff (PopCap: Bookworm), but that's because they take the time and effort to write it in different platforms

There's this magical thing called "Java". Perhaps you've heard of it? Even without Java, if your Blackberry and Treo 600 happen to use the same processor and a similar enough OS, why should Treo's maker or Blackberry's maker stop you from you finding a way to run the app on either device through warranty voiding? That's the complaint (obviously leveled at the iPhone, really).

The iPhone is NOT a car. You can't die by using a phone, and the phone industry is not nearly as regulated as the auto industry.

The former (phones don't kill you) and the latter (the phone industry is not nearly as regulated) really shouldn't matter. In fact, more regulation really doesn't matter in this equation. What does matter is that locking software to a device is anti-competitive (which in itself doesn't matter, but it leaves a company open to anti-trust violation should it grow big) and threatening to void a warranty solely of their discretion is a violation of extant warranty laws (how much and what kind and where a manufacturer can wave warranty because of user modification is obviously a country-by-country affair, but product regulation in the US, for example, isn't so lax to effectively be null).

In short, I have NO expectation that I should be able to move my apps from one platform to another, willy-nilly. Maybe if everything was copyleft'd and we were all using ports-capable OS's, sure. But I have no expectation of that any time soon.

Clearly you're expectations aren't low enough. Even if everything was copyleft'd (specifically, GPLv2'd), you couldn't expect to be able to move apps from one platform to another or even otherwise identical platforms. Clearly, you're using expectation in the "what I expect to see in the past, present, and future" sense. The GP was speaking of expectation in the "what I demand to see in the future" sense.

Re:we care

[Sandbags]

and half the "lockdown" apple enforces is under their contractual obligations to AT&T, the media providers (networks, studios, etc), and to protect the patents and trademarks of their partners.

Apple is extremely open. They frown on overcharing for crap, for scams, and they like to protect their consumers. It's half the reason people CHOOSE them. Their device works, priced vs a blackberry it's cheaper over 2 years, has nice interface software (don;t get me started on Palm...), and you have amazing freedom with the device. It happens to be restricted to AT&T's network, but... oh, wait, is that a Verizon tower my iPone is connected to right now? Why yes, it is!!! Yea, the whole FCC manditory partner network sharing thing... I could give a shit about AT&T's poor netowkr since the device will simply connect to the strongest local 3G tower anyway...

plus, you can allways jailbreak the iPhone. You do have that right (if you're OK saccrificing a warranty).

Re:we care

[foldingstock]

If I buy a Ford, I can't start throwing SAAB suspension parts and Volkswagon exchaust with a Honda engine in it. Doesn't work like that.

That is a retarded statement. Something more accurate would be "spark plugs/oxygen sensors/etc I bought for my Ford won't work in my friend's SAAB."

Of course saying that is also retarded, since spark plugs/oxygen senros/etc are not brand-specific and you can buy them for some Fords that will work in some SAABs.

With a bit of mechanical knowledge, you could also equip a Ford with a VW exhaust if you wished. There is nothing in the paperwork you signed with Ford legally binding you from doing this with the vehicle you purchased. If you leased the vehicle, you would have signed a document preventing you from doing this.

Going back to the software world, this is really an argument about whether or not you own your licensed copy of a particular piece of software. If you own it, you should be able to do whatever you want. If you only own the right to use it, than you should follow certain regulations.

At the end of the day, though, computers!=automobiles, so these analogies only go so far.

Re:we care

[plague3106]

No, but you'll have a choice of about a dozen alternators from different manufactors besides the one from the automaker that WILL all work just as well. Its not as if there's only one company making replacement parts.

Re:we care

[Xtravar]

Without jailbreaking (Something Apple hasn't stated is OK to do, and has at least implied it is NOT OK to do) you can't load software of your choosing on your own hardware, only software Apple deems worthy to sell on their store.

Incorrect. Pay $99 for a developer's license, compile or develop any software you want, and put it on your phone.

Re:we care

[dzfoo]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate

Hate:
1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.

Strongly disliking the iPhone, perhaps even passionately so, enough to argue for his point... sounds like hate to me. Or are you suggesting the the word hate should only be used to mean exclusively bigotry?

          -dZ.

Re:we care

[TerranFury]

senseless hatred

Indeed! Mr. Governor should be prosecuted for hate-crime to the full extent of the law! We cannot allow criticism of the oppressed Apple minority! Why, if we start down this slippery slope, pretty soon we'll be lynching iPods in broad daylight and burning MacBooks in ovens! Never again! Never again!

Seriously, the man's just criticizing a consumer electronics company. "Senseless hatred" goes a bit far, don't you think?

Re:we care

[MadnessASAP]

Not to be defending the GP (he is a tool) but you're analogy also breaks down. The mechanic will be more then happy to sell you whatever alternator you want (money is money after all) but he wont be there to install it in you car, provide any guarantee as to it's suitability for your car or even listen to you when you complain that it doesn't work in your car.

That and alternators are pretty standard pieces of equipment, most alternators will go in most cars.

Re:we care

[BobMcD]

On the other hand, you can go buy an Android phone any time you want.

You can choose the restrictive provider or the permissive one.

Which sounds to me like a great reason to appreciate Google, and a weak one to defend Apple.

If you choose the restrictive provider and then complain about their being restrictive, then you're either not paying attention or just looking for an argument (that's down the hall on the right).

This is absolutely true. However, it is also possible to modify the law to where this is no longer true. This is the thrust of the debate in general - whether or not this should be considered.

In a world where we are authorized to mandate the tint of people's vehicle windows, I'm not convinced that requiring Apple to not lock you out of hardware you bought is out of the realm of discussion.

Re:we care

[PylonHead]

Net Neutrality now means anything you want it to.

The term was originally used to say that ISPs should not restrict their customers by blocking access to applications and content that might compete with applications and content that they or their partners would offer.

Then it was used to say that ISPs should not use traffic shaping, even if their motive is to better share the bandwidth available to their customers.

Now apparently it means that you get to tell people what they can and can't do on their individual sites and with their individual businesses.

Re:we care

[mcgrew]

I'm using my dad as a stereotype instead of my mother because I recently learned that using mothers as examples of clueless users is sexist.

No more sexist than using fathers as stereotypes of clueless users, especially if you're female. Less radical feminist mysandrists would rather you use the gender-neutral "parent", while the radical feminists don't believe that it's possible for a man to BE a parent.

Q: How mant feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY YOU SEXIST PIG!

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

Car analogy: If a car manufacturer says you're only allowed to go to them for maintenance, you should think about purchasing it if it's going to be a big deal for you.

Or, force legislation to prevent that business practice, which is what we did in the US because the manufacturers tried that and people were able to recognize its negative impact on society.

Re:we care

[UltraAyla]

I think you hit it on the nose here. There can't be an expectation of openness and portability on phones right now. It just doesn't exist since it's all about sales and profit and lock-in. But I would like to point out that TFA (or at least TFS :) - this is slashdot, after all) seems to make the point that it shouldn't be this way, and that how we buy affects whether it is or not. I will not buy an iphone for this reason - I want more control than that. But like you said, I have no expectation of any market shift anytime soon or some nice ability to move my apps between devices.

Re:we care

[0100010001010011]

You can if you're good enough.
http://www.engineswapdepot.com/
http://www.engineswapdepot.com/?p=517">V8 VW Bug

Re:we care

[mcgrew]

If you buy a car, you expect to be able to take it to your own mechanic

And choose your own brand of gasoline, oil, tires, tranny fluid, spark plugs, etc. You can even replace the radio with an aftermarket radio.

With an iPod you're not allowed to change your own oil, and you have to buy iOil and iGas.

Re:we care

[tepples]

I could give a shit about AT&T's poor netowkr since the device will simply connect to the strongest local 3G tower anyway

But if you go over 25% of your usage on "partner" networks, AT&T has the right to cut you off and charge you the early termination fee. A lot of the United States is covered only by "partner" networks, such as Vermont where AT&T cannot operate because regional carriers have already swallowed up all the spectrum. AT&T won't sell plans to people who live in those areas.

Re:we care

[natehoy]

I'm sorry, "open" is exactly how I would not describe Apple, unless I'm misunderstanding your use of the term. In exactly what way is Apple "open" in your view?

I'm with you on the protecting their customers from crap, scams, etc.

If half of Apple's lockdown is forced by their partner (AT&T) then pray tell why can I tether my Blackberry, why do I have MMS on my Blackberry, and why can I run Google Voice on my Blackberry? AT&T has never said "boo" about ANY of those things.

As far as "priced cheaper over two years" versus a Blackberry, I'd like to see the numbers. My wife picked up her Blackberry Pearl for $50 after all the rebates and stuff - she could have gotten a Curve for the same bucks. The cheapest iPhone started in the $100 range post-rebate. It was all AT&T. Same voice plans, same data plans, same instant messaging plans. So she saved $100 out of the gate, and would have paid the same monthly fee. How does the iPhone become cheaper over time?

As far as getting a signal from a Verizon tower... I had no idea the iPhone supported EVDO, because Verizon sure as hell doesn't support GSM/CDMA/EDGE on their towers. At least not where I live, where Verizon is actually dominant. I know I'm not getting any signal off the Verizon towers around here, unless AT&T also has an antenna on the same tower.

Re:we care

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That is the neutrality issue in that specific case.

This has fuck all to do with net neutrality. Neutrality is about enforcing bandwidth neutrality for traffic passing through your system - The AppStore is an app and expected to be somewhat biased.

Without jailbreaking (Something Apple hasn't stated is OK to do, and has at least implied it is NOT OK to do) you can't load software of your choosing on your own hardware, only software Apple deems worthy to sell on their store.

Well, like it or not, they haven't been anything but open about that.

Re:we care

[tepples]

Do customers have the freedom to go elsewhere if those business limitations bother them? Yes.

Not without paying the $175 early termination fee. And this "freedom to go elsewhere" isn't as ubiquitous as you appear to suggest:

• Can you name a handheld video game system with both major label games and indie games? DS and PSP are locked down against indie games, and the major labels have ignored GP2X and Dingoo.
• Can you name a system for running shared-screen multiplayer video games on a TV with both major label games and indie games? A console is locked down against indie games, and the major labels have ignored a small form factor PC connected to an HDTV, instead choosing to require a LAN of PCs, one for each player.

Re:we care

[vertinox]

Exactly, because you were required to buy an iphone/ipod touch. There wasn't a million other choices you could have picked. Nope, it's Apple or nothing.

True.

At the same time some people are lucky to have more than one ISP in their area.

If Comcast pulled the same stuff that Apple does with their phone, then I'd be rather upset... Simply because I cannot switch to another broad band competitor because they do not exist.

At least with phones I have about 3 choices... Not much and isn't producing much competition, but its better than 1.

Re:we care

[jipn4]

The App Store is a store, not a bazaar. They approve/deny products just as any store would.

Yes, but beyond a certain point and market share, it ceases to be "just like any store".

I take net neutrality to mean everyone has equal access to the internet,

Yes, iTunes shouldn't be regulated under net neutrality. But eventually, it might be regulated due to unfair business practices or monopolistic behavior. However, it doesn't have enough market share yet, and it is so overpriced and cumbersome that I doubt it ever will.

Re:we care

[jipn4]

Software service providers have all the rights to lock down their applications and pre

Really? In what sense do you think they "have that right"? Morally? Constitutionally? Legally?

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

No, net neutrality always meant that all traffic is treated equally, regardless of which protocol, port, content or application.

Re:we care

[hardburn]

There's this magical thing called "Java". Perhaps you've heard of it?

Haven't we been through this before? Nobody has taken the cross platform capabilities of Java seriously since "All Your Base" jokes went out of style.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

I have had a BlackBerry Bold since Tuesday. I didn't like it. Tethering to a non-computer is not possible without buying a $170 device (CradlePoint PHS300) and it can't act as a wifi access point for my iPod Touch. Its email handling (formatting) is terrible and it didn't work with Thunderbird (emails deleted in Thunderbird were deleted on the Exchange server but not on the BlackBerry, emails read were updated on the Exchange server but not on the BlackBerry etc etc). The browser is terrible, most pages with Javascript menus resulted in dozens of pages of crap before the "real" content appeared.

Trying to use the little plastic trackball is horrible. There are menus of menus you have to navigate to do even the simplest things. A reminder for appointments won't let you snooze for any more than 5 minutes, which means your 1-hour advance notice causes more trouble than it's worth. Voice dialing doesn't work. Searching for "STE" brings up 5 people named Steve, but typing an additional "V" (so it's STEV) makes them all disappear. It's so frustrating to use I had to remind myself not to throw it.

I sent a 4-page listing of issues to our phone guy and he couldn't help with any of them. So today I paid $100 out of pocket for an 16GB IPhone 3GS, which will be here Monday. I will hand over the BlackBerry to someone else in our department who can use it. I'm already familiar with the iPhone capabilities since I have an iPod Touch 2G. All these issues... aren't issues on the iPod Touch 2G. It's truly a pleasure to use, which is why I spent $350 of my hard-earned cash on it.

Yes the iPhone 3GS will set you back $200 if you are a regular Joe. Originally I was offered an 8GB 2G for $50. Either way it's worth it to me.

Posted anon for obvious reasons.

Re:we care

[dclydew]

Net Neutrality and Vendor Lock-In are not the same thing.

Net Neutrality is talking about access and QoS of Internet Traffic. Vendor lock-in is a stupid practice that has been going on for ages because people don't learn from the past.

Re:we care

[PylonHead]

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

Here's a slate article from 2006:

http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/

"To take a strong example, would it be a problem if AT&T makes it slower and harder to reach Gmail and quicker and easier to reach Yahoo! mail?"

This is what net neutrality used to mean. There is not a single mention of traffic shaping in the article.

I don't disagree that it's come to mean something else. And my point is that it looks like it's still on the move...

Re:we care

[dclydew]

Considering the support nightmare that can result from an average PC with applications from different vendors, I would say that we might be talking about technical limitations... ie, if Apple feels that it can't SUPPORT the potential nightmare of conflicting apps from 500 different developers.

Re:we care

[dclydew]

Apple entered into a contract with ATT that restricted their behavior. You entered into a contract with Apple that restricted your behavior.

Why did you do that? Should we have to live in a society that tolerates people signing contracts that they will later bitch about?

Re:we care

[NickFortune]

But your argument breaks down here: Had you not bought the iPhone, you wouldn't have to buy from the iTMS

Like if I hadn't bought my laptop from Acer, I wouldn't have to buy all my software from the Acer online store. And in fact I don't. Or if I hadn't bought a machine a with a Microsoft OS preloaded (hard to avoid with laptops) then I wouldn't have to buy all my software from MS' online store. Which as it turns out, I also don't have to do.

So there's nothing particular in Apple's providing either the hardware or software that justifies their enforced control of the distribution channel for software. So don't think that's enough to break the GPs argument.

Apple has contracts with ATT and the fellow app makers.

Well, yes. And I'm sure those contracts work to the benefit of Apple and ATT and all the other parties. It's just not clear that they work to benefit of Apple's customers. So I'm not convinced that the GP's argument breaks down on that account, either.

Ultimately, the question isn't whether Apple have the right (or even a good reason) for their lockdown on iPhone software distribution. The question is whether this is behaviour we really want to encourage.

This isn't a black and white issue

I entirely agree.

Re:we care

[dclydew]

The government mandates the level of tint, because they determined (wisely or stupidly) that tinted windows = more time for the bad guy to get a gun and shoot the cop walking up to give him a speeding ticket. That has nothing to do with apple or its policies.

Why would the government have ANY right to demand that Apple change their business model? If Apple were a monopoly... that is if the IPhone held 92.3% of the market and they had draconian laws about who could develop apps... maybe you would get some traction... but the IPhone is one of many, many options all of which have varying levels of freedoms, restrictions, limitations and functionality.

You, the consumer are supposed to choose the product/features that you like the most and go with it. If you chose the IPhone, why is that the governments problem?

Re:we care

[foldingstock]

For your *cough* great car example, it's more like buying a car and signing an agreement up front that only manufacturer-approved parts may be used in your car, or else you void the warranty.

Which is exactly what you sign when you lease a car. :)

You do not "own" proprietary software; you license it.

Re:we care

[ajs]

If you choose the restrictive provider and then complain about their being restrictive, then you're either not paying attention or just looking for an argument (that's down the hall on the right).

This is absolutely true. However, it is also possible to modify the law to where this is no longer true.

So you think that people should be allowed to choose anything they like as long as it isn't a restrictive platform? How is that reasonable?

Re:we care

[vakuona]

Overpriced?...Maybe. Cumbersome?.....Are you kidding me?

Re:we care

[BobMcD]

Why did you do that?

I actually didn't sign anything, as I do not own an iPhone.

Nor could I actually agree to anything that I'm not a part to, even if I wanted to. I'm not allowed to view all the contracts they're signing, am I?

Re:we care

[DougF]

Then how dare you tell me how I can use it.

No one is. They're saying certain actions of yours violates their warranty and support policies. Go ahead, jump on it, jail-break it, load up anything you want. You own it, go for it. Just don't expect Apple or GM or whoever to fix it for you when whatever you've loaded up/modified has done serious damage.
Apple has created a system that non-techie types or those who don't want to be bothered can use easily. If you are technically competent, and have the spare time and ambition, buy whatever product and modify it to your heart's content. Case in point: My kids and I own iPods. When the kids ruined the batteries on their iPods, I bought batteries from a fix-it-yourself website, replaced the batteries and doubled their playing time. I could have used Apple, but chose to do it myself and I think I got a better product for one evening's work. I also understand the consequences of my actions are such that Apple will not honor any warranty issue with those iPods, and I accept that.

Re:we care

[aesiamun]

But you can buy any aftermarket part you want designed for that car, whether Ford likes it or not. Ford does not say "You can't put this part on your car, nope...it duplicates the functionality of the whatsahoosit".

You have to hack your iPhone in order to run something that Apple hasn't approved. All I need to do is remove the part from my Ford.

As for your T-Mobile software on a Verizon phone...I bet i can put your blackberry apps from your ToMo bb on my VZW bb. RIM doesn't say "You can't run that...", Microsoft doesn't say "You can't run that", Google doesn't say "You can't run that", only Apple seems to say that. They go to great lengths to break that hack you did to jailbreak your iPhone on every firmware update.

Re:we care

[Vintermann]

"You don't see people complaining that they can't just open up a booth to sell their own CDs in the local record store. "

Bad metaphor. When CD stores refuse to carry a popular band, because they are published by the "wrong" record company, it might be very reasonable to complain. Supermarket chains sell shelf space, instead of letting products fight on equal terms - we should definitively complain about that, because it hurts competition, and ultimately, consumers.

Common carriers are a good thing in general, not just for the net. Competition-strangling delivery channels of all sorts deny us the best products at the fair price.

Re:we care

[BobMcD]

I was actually referring to the green laws referring to auto air conditioning, but you made the point for me.

Why would the government have ANY right to demand that Apple change their business model?

Well, wouldn't that be...

because they determined (wisely or stupidly)...

that it needed to be changed?

The government will do what the people want it to do. So long as neutrality applied to everyone, including Apple, there's no limit here.

You, the consumer are supposed to choose the product/features that you like the most and go with it. If you chose the IPhone, why is that the governments problem?

Why are we limiting laws to issues that are only the governments problem ONLY in cases where it benefits Apple? There are literally thousands of laws governing things that are decidedly NOT the government's problem. Why is this news to you?

That aside, as long as the playing field is fair, I have no idea what the objections could reasonably be. I do understand why Apple would desire that it did not happen, but from a civics point of view, the possibility of the law existing is absolutely a non-issue.

I also see a great deal of benefit.

Further I would think that if they want to use radiation that continually bombards my skin (e.g. controlled radio space) then I might get a reasonable say in how that gets used, especially as a member of a democratic public with similar desires.

Re:we care

[BobMcD]

People should be able to choose any device they like.

There should be reasonable limits on restrictions placed on devices sold to the public.

These are not incompatible ideas.

I can come up with analogies if you really need them, but I honestly fail to see the issue here.

And as I have already said elsewhere, so long as these restriction limits applied to every manufacturer equally, there isn't any compelling reason I can see not to have them.

I'd even go so far as to say the manufacturers could be absolved of all support issues, etc. But a basic neutrality in the way of allowing users to run software from more than a single source, for example, cannot be against the best interests of the public.

Re:we care

[Vintermann]

"But.. people DO choose to buy these things, knowing that Apple can be real assholes about controlling what you've bought from them."

No, they don't. Most people don't know about the issues, they don't know they are getting screwed. Some vaguely grasp it, but can scarcely imagine any other way.

There is a market, but not a particularly free one. Free markets need information to work. Sellers don't make markets free if they can help it, because with perfect competition, profits simply can't exist.

Since Nintendo in the eighties, we've quietly accepted that the maker of a device should have complete control over what runs on it. We shouldn't have. We should have said, "that's abusing a monopoly in one area [iphone-compatible hardware] to get a monopoly in another [iphone-compatible software]". We'd be better off if we had.

Re:we care

[brkello]

You don't get it. The App Store really isn't the point. The iPhone is the point. It is an access to the Internet. But Apple only lets you run "approved applications" from the app store. Thus reducing our freedom of choice to run whatever we want. If Comcast only let you run their approved apps on the Internet, you would be freaking out. But Apple can do no wrong on Slashdot.

It's like a console vs. the PC. It doesn't have to be bad...it just is if every vendor locks us down like that. Thankfully, we do have a choice with Android. Otherwise, jailbreaking would be our only option.

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you offer one alternative choice...which may or may not be acceptable in a given situation. (Maybe whoever offers the android doesn't have service in his area, maybe android's lack of a bluetooth API is a problem...etc.) Two options doesn't make for true competition.

The bigger question here is the second part of the comment - "do we really have to live in a society that tolerates that?" Of course we don't.

Re:we care

[Vintermann]

"Besides, if you feel that way about your iPhone, jailbreak it."

Apple probably feels that this is illegal. Just like Nintendo warns against operating an "illegal device" with your DS. (Companies at that size don't need to refer to actual laws. If someone interferes with their business plans, they are always criminals, now or when the laws get written.)

Re:we care

[Vexorian]

So, let comcast break net neutrality, it is not like it is the only ISP...

Re:we care

[dissy]

That is the neutrality issue in that specific case.

This has fuck all to do with net neutrality. Neutrality is about enforcing bandwidth neutrality for traffic passing through your system - The AppStore is an app and expected to be somewhat biased.

No, "Net Neutrality" doesn't mean what I said. That is why I did not use that term :}

Additionally, "that specific case" which clearly means the app store, is not a network issue. So no, I was not speaking of enforcing bandwidth.

As you clearly pointed out, but seem to not understand, the issue of enforcing bandwidth equally is called net neutrality.

Neutrality, the word I used (with no additional qualifiers), is defined as "The state or policy of being neutral"

Re:we care

[dissy]

Incorrect. Pay $99 for a developer's license, compile or develop any software you want, and put it on your phone.

Good call. I did totally forget about the developer process letting you install an app on phones manually.

So I was incorrect in that statement, one can do so.

I guess my mind blocked it out as an option, since for me (not a professional developer) that is too much money when jailbreaking is free. But that's just me, and it is still an option.

My mistake!

Re:we care

[Anonymous Coward]

iTunes navigation is awful: the back button ("" at the top) doesn't reliably go back, the movies page doesn't show movies by genre, and the whole thing is slow. Other parts of iTunes are just as bad.

As far as I'm concerned, iTunes is the worst of the major music and video stores on the market, and I avoid it as much as I can. The only reason I still use it is because it has some content I can't get anywhere else. If it weren't for that, I'd just get rid of that turd altogether.

Re:we care

[bnenning]

Just simple: don't violate trademarks, don't duplicate generic device functionality, play in your own snadbox, don't cause security issues.

None of those are "simple" criteria. Especially for the first two, Apple has denied apps using ludicrous reasoning, and developers have no recourse.

Apple is the same way; either pay to unlock it, wait your 2 years, or simply jailbreak... Do whatever you want, but no warranty if you do.

Car dealers don't go out of their way to prevent you from going to unapproved mechanics, and don't try to convince the government that you're a criminal if you do.

Vendor lock in? I tell you what, I'd rather have a "restrictive" app market on a stable device I like holding in my hand for which under heavy use I get a full day's battery, and continual free software upgrades, vs an Android where the apps are limited, buggy, expensive, and suck the phone dry in 4-6 hours.

And that's a fine reason for Apple maintaining a store with approved software. It's not a reason to prevent me from installing software from other sources if I choose to do so.

Re:we care

[natehoy]

Hmm. OK, I kinda see your point, but I think you're defining a monopoly very broadly (or, defining it over a very narrow segment of a larger marketspace).

Since Nintendo in the eighties, we've quietly accepted that the maker of a device should have complete control over what runs on it. We shouldn't have.

"Should have" and "can have" are two different arguments. Apple currently "can have" that control because they do not have a monopoly on mobile devices. If the iPhone suddenly becomes the only (or even the significant majority) game in town, then I'd be concerned about them having a monopoly.

I'm not about to start advocating regulating things that market forces are capable of controlling. If and when Apple gets a monopoly on some significant segment to where *people have no choice but to run them* for some specific purpose, then I'll be the first to point and yell "Monopoly" and insist that there be a competitive device to fill that purpose *or* Apple be subject to monopoly rules on the device.

We should have said, "that's abusing a monopoly in one area [iphone-compatible hardware] to get a monopoly in another [iphone-compatible software]".

I don't see iPhone-compatible hardware as being a market segment to which "monopoly" can apply, it's a subsegment of smart phones. I don't think that can really be considered a monopoly in a legal sense.

Can I buy third-party iPhone-compatible hardware? No. I agree with you as far as that goes.

Is there anything preventing me from filling the same need I *could* fill with an iPhone with another device from another manufacturer? I'd say "no". In fact, I have proof of that - the Blackberry on my belt right now. And if someone writes software that is compatible with the Blackberry, I can run it. RIM has an app store, but it's not an exclusive - I can load anything I please on my BB without involving the app store.

Am I in the minority in making informed choices about my purchases? Maybe. But free market choices still exist, and therefore I don't feel that Apple has a monopoly on anything. If they want to control the device, I think they'll find eventually that it makes the device undesirable. Or maybe not, but as long as other choices exist, they get to make the device they want and sell it the way they want.

Re:we care

[Xtravar]

It's not the worst option, although the developer license comes with its own set of rules (like you aren't supposed to compile and distribute open source, I believe).

Band together with a bunch of friends and share the provisioning profile. 2 friends, $50 a piece, 4 friends, $25 a piece..., 100 friends, $1 a piece! Then enjoy Apple-approved iPhone freedom.

That, in addition to the fact that it's incredibly easy and safe to jailbreak an iPhone, makes me think this whole argument against the app store 'monopoly' is pointless. Things could be infinitely worse.

Even having a jailbroken phone AND developer license, the App Store is a handy way to find quality software quickly. It's actually the best of all worlds.

Re:we care

[onefriedrice]

... because people don't learn from the past.

Or just don't care.

Re:we care

[pgmrdlm]

Apple owns it. It is a business web site. That web site is a line item under assets under the apple company. Are you now saying you should be able to dictate to a company what they can and can not sell on their property?

Re:we care

[natehoy]

PS: Because I just realized this could be misinterpreted...

"Am I in the minority in making informed choices about my purchases?" was not intended to imply in any way that someone who purchases an iPhone did so because they somehow did not make an informed choice.

Apple lock-in is a feature of the iPhone, and TO ME it was enough of an undesirable feature to make the unit unacceptable despite its obviously desirable features.

Other people will, obviously, prioritize their buying based on other criteria.

Re:we care

[Rasputin]

I own my phone. It is my business phone. My phone is a line item under assets under Rasputin Inc. Are you now saying that Apple should be able to dictate to a company what software they can and can not run on their property?

Re:we care

[Chabo]

Haven't we been through this before? Nobody has taken the cross platform capabilities of Java seriously since "All Your Base" jokes went out of style.

What you say?!?

Oh, sorry. :/

Re:we care

[peragrin]

Since phone manufactures limit what apps you can run.(see all phones ever made) Even if you had an open app store it doesn't mean your open phone hassoftare that will run. In fact it is more frustrating as just because it is a winmo phone or a Blackberry doesn't mean that the hardware can run the app. It is worse for Andriod.

Let me ask a stupid question why can't my linux apps run on windows? Why can't Windows app run on my Mac, Why won't MSFT Exchange install into my openBSD server.

hint it is the same reason why you can't use an app from borders. This is basic computer science. Until we get a fully platform independant OS, and application structure it will exist. and since such openness goes against making money for corporations then such a thing will never happen.

Personally I don't understand why Linux developers make their lives easier and setup a cross platform toolchain, and application structure so they can compile apps once and not have to worry about who is going to supply the mips, sparc, i686, i64, PowerPC, and arm versions of that software.

Re:we care

[pgmrdlm]

Well damn, I wrote up a full reply and realized I wasn't logged in. Look, it comes down to this. You know what their restrictions are. That is part of reviewing any purchase you make. You don't like it, don't buy it. Hell, I hate iTunes. Hate it with a passion. I don't own an iphone or an iPod touch because of it. Their loss. You say your iPhone is a part of your business. ok H.P. Server., there are restrictions on what you can and can not do with them. Hell, you ever read some of those contracts???? Car lease. You lease a car or a van for your buisness. There are things you can and can not do with regard to modifications to the vehcile. Software you purchase for your business. Restrictions. Shittttttttt. We won't even talk about MicroSoft. Lets deal with anti virus. A seperate license for each machine? Ok, thats a bad example because you have to download virus definations. How about graphic programs? You have artists you employ. You have to purchase a seperate graphic app for each one. Its the way it is. Apple is not doing anything other companies arn't doing. Either in brick and morter buisness's or in software buisness's. Sorry, you bought the phone knowing going into it what you could and couldn't do.

Re:we care

[pgmrdlm]

Sorry for being long winded. I want to add. That there are enough choices out there between other smart phones and pda's that there is no reasons you couldn't find something which fit your business with the software you wanted on it.

Re:we care

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No, "Net Neutrality" doesn't mean what I said. That is why I did not use that term :}

Net NEutrality still has nothing to do with what you're blathering about.

Additionally, "that specific case" which clearly means the app store, is not a network issue. So no, I was not speaking of enforcing bandwidth.

who cares? The while point of this thread is someone getting hacked off about net neutrality. What sort idiot demands that a store owner give up control over who's allowed to sell product in its store?

Re:we care

[ceoyoyo]

So what? Cell networks have never been anything close to neutral. In fact, they basically serve as the best example of how horrible unrestricted net-nonneutrality can be. You (and the article author) are complaining about a device operating on that network not being as open as it could be? Come on - the iPhone is a lot more "neutral" than both the vast majority of cell phones in history and, in the AT&T case, the underlying network that it's running on.

Re:we care

[William Ager]

But your argument breaks down here: Had you not paid for an internet connection, you wouldn't have to deal with a non-neutral internet. Everybody is bashing ISPs for the whole tiered service thing, but let me see if I can explain something.

Those ISPs have contracts with a number of companies. Remember Vonage being blocked by an ISP? Ever consider that that ISP probably had an agreement within the telecom part of the company that prevented them from allowing alternate internet telephony services from running on their lines? A neutral internet assists in filesharing, which assists in piracy (I'm not saying that if you fileshare, you pirate) Out of respect for their media providers, they should try to fight piracy.

This isn't a black and white issue.

Re:we care

[Gazoogleheimer]

Wrong. If you buy a car, you expect to be able to take it to your own mechanic.

Actually, that's another big issue--carmakers have been going toward obscuring service manuals and making the vehicles use code-obfuscated, encrypted, or just plain odd interfaces for diagnostics that require hideously and prohibitively expensive equipment to interface--something biased heavily toward car dealerships, not independent repair shops. (It's also a PITA for the dying breed of home mechanic.)

Re:we care

[dangitman]

If half of Apple's lockdown is forced by their partner (AT&T) then pray tell why can I tether my Blackberry, why do I have MMS on my Blackberry, and why can I run Google Voice on my Blackberry? AT&T has never said "boo" about ANY of those things.

Say what? The iPhone supports tethering and MMS on various carriers around the world... just not on AT&T yet. So these restrictions obviously have a lot to do with AT&T. The Google Voice thing, however, is an Apple restriction.

Re:we care

[jedidiah]

...ok. Now repeat the exercise with Video.

Re:we care

[greggman]

I don't think it's quite that cut and dry.

To use some different analogies...

There are laws that prevent a phone company from restricting what you can talk about on a phone.
And yet there are no laws that require a magazine to carry every article submitted to it.

With iPhone being as popular as it is, there is arguably some legitimate concern that it's closer to the phone model than the magazine model. What if Apple started only allowing democrat supporting apps but no republican supporting apps? In the magazine model that would be ok. It's perfectly legal for it to run only democrat supporting articles. In the phone model that's not ok. It's not legal for AT&T to filter republican supporting conversations.

So, at what point does the ability for Apple to effectively, censor apps, switch from "they have every right" like a magazine to "they have no right" like a phone?

For example there is currently a facebook app. What if there was a republicansite app that did the same thing as the facebook app (let you see a feed) but connected to a site that was pretty much a republican supporting site. If Apple banned that app would that be okay like magazine or not okay like a phone?

They could solve this issue by letting you install your own apps and not having to go through the App store but for now they don't allow that which gives them the power to censor anything they want for any reason.

I know I'm not personally comfortable with Apple having that much influence over that many people.

Re:we care

[dclydew]

What gives Apple the right to enter into contracts which restrict my behavior?

I actually didn't sign anything, as I do not own an iPhone.

How has Apple restricted your behavior then?

Nor could I actually agree to anything that I'm not a part to, even if I wanted to. I'm not allowed to view all the contracts they're signing, am I?

Of course not, yet people voluntarily enter into contracts with parties that are contracted with other parties and restrictions result. Its like buying closed source software that is tied to other closed source libraries. Why would someone think thats a good idea? I don't know, I choose to use open source.

Now Google has a solution that doesn't have those restrictions, so you can buy an Android and not have the kind of restrictions Apple has. That's how the market works. If our philosophy is truly best, Android will continue to grow in Market share just like Linux has. Maybe it will beat out the iPhone, or maybe it will die or maybe it will compete and people like you and I can use the Android and other people will use the iPhone and other people will use a Blackberry...

and that isn't Restriction, its choice.

Re:we care

[Shadowmist]

"People don't know that they're being screwed..." Maybe it's because for the most part they're not? They're buying exactly what they payed for, a smartphone that has the most asskicking ensemblage of software and tech on the planet. There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from buying music from whatever source they want, converting appropriately and uploading it to the iPhone. Apps? people have sampled the "freedom" of Blackberry and Palm, and they've rejected the comparatively miserable experience software has been on those machines by comparison. Maybe Android is an alternative, well it's years behind the iPhone in release and they've got to play the game of catchup as just like anyone else who hasn't put in the time yet. Apple did not invent the music player, nor the smart phone, nor the retail store. You're going to say they're screwing people over because compared to Real, Blackberry, and Dell, they're the folks who got it right in one package? News for you, Smartphones are appliances, the user does not give one freaking iota whether the innards are powered by linux, windows, or bloody Mac OS, they want a product that just works and in the iPhone for the overwhelming majority of it's users, that's what they get, and that's why iPhone sales continue to do well even during the latest recession. One more thing. stop waving Net Neutrality like it's some holy shroud that can be laid on everything you dislike in tech. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with this. It's about access and the handling of data and Apple could very well be as much a loser as you and I if Net Neutrality sinks into a black hole of stratified data access. The bargain rates for iTunes and NetFlix video rentals disappear if users have to start paying premium rates based on large downloads. or suffer either blocked access or slowed down bitrates.

Re:we care

[CarpetShark]

Actually, plenty of people do. I use cross-platform java stuff all the time, including using standard MIDP apps for my phone, and neat features like downloading a windows someapp.exe file and running it on linux with java -jar someapp.exe. Just yesterday, I installed an app in wine, needed to test it, found out it was java, and just ran the wine-installed version using the native linux jre.

Re:we care

[Lonewolf666]

On the other hand, you can go buy an Android phone any time you want.

True, and lets not forget Nokia/Maemo.

In the PC world, I like how Apple's success weakens the Microsoft almost-monopoly. In the mobile phone market, Apple are part of the problem (and their managers are maybe worse control freaks than Ballmer & Co).

Re:we care

[j1mmy]

The people running stores choose what gets sold in them. It has nothing to do with public or private owners.

Re:we care

[Lord Flipper]

So I'm applying some affirmative action

Ah yes, and so much for neural net neutrality as well.

Re:we care

[NoOneInParticular]

You forget that a walled garden is very comforting and nice. You can temporarily forget about the harshness of reality and enjoy yourself, courtesy of megacorp.inc. People like that. But they do choose. They choose Apple for their computer experience, maybe Microsoft for their console experience, and maybe take a cruise for their holidays. There's a big market for taking care of people, as people really hate to figure out everything for themselves.

Re:we care

[Lord Flipper]

Then how dare you tell me how I can use it. I wish more people would choose to not buy those things. Fuck Apple.

Right, and their business model/policy differs from Motorola, Samsung, LG et. al., and Verizon, MetroPCS, Sprint et. al., exactly how? So when Verizon cripples, or "meters," the built-in "features" of Android will that be Google's fault, or Verizon's or Motorola's, or, in the minds of you retarded Apple-haters, will that be more Apple shit? Fuck your logic pal.

Re:we care

[badkarmadayaccount]

What technical limitations? *pulls out wrench*

Re:we care

[plague3106]

Dozens of programs allow you to convert to the video format ipod uses. An added step... but no one telling you how to use your ipod.

Re:we care

[Sandbags]

1) Blackberry may be $100 after rebate (some even as cheap as $50, but lets face it, those are not multitouch iPhone competitors), but the monthly cost for an iPhone 900 minute plan is only $89.99, and the Verizon blackbery plan is $99.99 and is capped at 5GB where the iPhone is not capped. Adding SMS/MMS to each is the same cost, so the iPhone is cheaper over the 2 year plan by $10 a month. The unlimited plan is the same price on both devices, but still the iPhone comes out ahead with unlimited data. Finally, the $30 extra to tether the blackberry compared to the (yet unconfirmed, but reliably leaked) $20 to do the same with the iphone. Lastly, i can swap out my iPhone on average every 18 months, receiving a $400 discount vs the Verizon device which gets a paltry $150 discount only once every 2 years... If you're comparing AT&T to AT&T, the Blackberry plan is still restricted to 5GB, and is not the same $30, but $40. Its more expensive. And the curve is no iPhone... Next we can talk about app prices, ringtone prices, etc...

2) Open as in ANYONE can be a developer and submit apps. Google voice is not removed or rejected, it's still pending, and that "pending" has actually a lot more to do with Verizon and AT&T's contract than Apple's refusal to allow it on its own. Also, I have SEEN AT&T terminate a phone contract because an "unapproved" application was on a device. Just because AT&T doesn't have a gatekeeper for the blackberry does NOT mean they can not control hwat you do and do not run on your device. Google voice is highly contravercial, and violates a current clause in the contract Verizon is wooing apple to get. Other apps have either been abusive, or useless.

Verizon runs 3G, and is fully compatible with iPhone 3G phones. It;s not EDGE... I can confirm I'm on a verizon tower as they're the only towers in this town. AT&T's closest tower is 40 miles from me.

Re:we care

[Sandbags]

AT&T does now support tethering, your data is old.

Also, the Google voice thing is not an Apple thing, directly. They are "further investigating" it and working with Google as releasing the app does not violate Apple;s policies directly, accepting that no 3G enabled VoIP apps are permitted per AT&T's contract terms. AT&T has given it pass, however, international cellular providers, and most speicifcally Verizon, soon to be the next carrier, vehemently oppose the idea (especially Verizon, who offers "my 5" on every line, and google voice would turn every line into an unlimited calling plan automatically...) That's why Apple is not YET releasing it (though rumor claims they're close...)

 

Re:we care

[Sandbags]

Devs have recourse, it's just paperwork, and NUMEROUS denials have been overturned and approved after further study. In fact, short of the apps that CLEARLY violated policies, and those that were determined to be user harrasing apps or spam/useless reppetitive applications very very few apps that have been rejected have not been approved in one form or another at a later date.

Apple does not go out of its way preventing unlocking either , AT&T does... Even still, Apple has made NO criminal threats against any user. They SELL unlocked iPhones in the USA and several other countries. And car dealers? no, they don;t PREVENT you from using unauthorized shops, they just VOID YOUR WARANTY for doing so.

You can install software from other sources, just not through THIER app in an automated fashoion, (though using that app to sync non-apple apps is easy). Unlock it, there are a dozen easy to use tools to do whatever you want with the device.

Total Puff Piece

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be a slow news day...

He says nothing, and Slashdot quotes it.

Re:Total Puff Piece

[Ethanol-fueled]

Agreed. His juxtaposition of the mobile and desktop perspectives of net neutrality makes no pragmatic sense. We can still slap anything we want on our desktops and surf anywhere with relatively minimal (if any) meddling from our ISPs.

As a final WTF, he shamelessly shouts out to Android and open source as the answer to society's ills. Guess what people? The average user can't do shit with their phones, Android or otherwise, as long as the telco's are in charge of what goes on them!

Saying that Android is free is like telling people that a chained servant is free*

. *free in his mind, that is.

Re:Total Puff Piece

[Dr. Evil]

As an aside, I actually think Android will not ever be a serious competitor for the iPhone.

1. It's been touched by Java (and don't tell me that it is different this time, I've seen the demos, and Android is just as sluggish as my Blackberry)
2. It's not a uniform hardware platform, so it will not be as popular as the iPhone for game developers
3. It is designed to empower end-users, when the real customers are... the telcos.

This is head-to-head with Windows Mobile, and maybe the Blackberry, but not the iPhone.

Re:Total Puff Piece

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know, the Mobile phone carriers have NO say in what goes on Android phones. I can download anything from the Android Market or from any other site.

And even better, VZW, who is known for jacking with every bit of the software load on a phone, is releasing a Google Experience phone...nothing but what Google offers.

ok, here's what you do

[uncanny]

As much of a fan of google as i am, i'm starting to think they are eventually going to be the next giant evil corporation. but for now, imma get a droid!

Right to censor my own S#!*

[zerosomething]

So lets apply the logic all the way out. In this case Mr Governor can't censor blog postings on his own site and Boing Boing would have to repost all of Violet Blue's postings. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/06/violet-blue-scr.html OK fine it's not exactly the same but now you need to have government regulate the internet and we don't want that. Boing Boing does have a right to censor and so does everyone else.

In The U.S.

[mpapet]

Consumers aren't oriented to preserving their media freedom.

Voters aren't oriented to media freedom either. They still swallow 'end of capitalism' and rugged individualism B.S. whole when the notion of regulations is mentioned.

So? You get what you want. Shiny, expensive, handcuffs.

On the mobile phone front, Symbian doesn't get any love on ./ but it's more open than it ever has been with excellent media freedom. Tons of applications and years ahead of newbies Apple and Google.

Re:In The U.S.

[jipn4]

Symbian is quite open these days, but its user interface and programming environment are beyond awful.

Apple fanboi's who cares mod me to hell and back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple products? - we dont need no stinking apple products !
Over priced cult for fashionista's.

In Gulag U.S.A.

[Anonymous Coward]

Web permits YOU !

Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout

Why is Apple singled out?

[rolfwind]

My gmail account isn't really portable. Sure, I can back it up, but the email is really the least of it. If google decided to lock me out of it tomorrow, I'd be fubared.

Websites provided specialized services is nothing new. The app store isn't a new concept, consoles had it longer.

Re:Why is Apple singled out?

[AP31R0N]

i recently had a bit of panic on this subject. i changed my password to something i couldn't quite remember. For about a day i was thinking about who FUXXORED i would be if i couldn't get in. i managed to reset my password the next day. This made me think about what i can do with my GMail accounts to reduce my fuckedness should something like that happen again.

i'm going to shift from GMail to GMail via Apps for Your Domain. i'll use nicknames and UserName+Website@MyDomain.tld to separate who is sharing my address and for spam filtering. i'll forward all/most mail to another account, maybe another GMail account or another webmail entirely. i suppose offline GMail on my computer might be another way to back up. If i'm locked out of my primary, i can log into the alternate and everything would be there.

As for files and all that other stuff, which i think is your main concern, that would be more complex. i try to think of my online storage as a place to share, rather than store.

Re:Why is Apple singled out?

[brkello]

Huh? Your argument doesn't make sense. You aren't comparing anything remotely similar. A PC can run any app that anyone writes (including gmail). The iPhone can only run sanctioned applications from their store.

Re:Why is Apple singled out?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can export your gmail filters and contacts, too. The only thing you couldn't take with you is the email address - for that, I recommend getting your own domain (and forwarding it to gmail, if you like).

WWW?

[rinoid]

What you think this is the WildWildWest?
There can't be a lack of packaged platform. And as much as I want it to happen the majority of the masses who joined facebook last year will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER fill out an OpenSocial profile much less manage one or grasp the concept. They want to go to the mall man.
Now GET BACK IN LINE!

p.s.
-- why is everything a dig at Apple. For fracks sake, prior to the most evil hideous oppressive App Store there was nothing like it... you try to manage growth like that.

p.s.s
-- i thought this would be a fun thread to mod but couldn't resist a movie quote.

Re:WWW?

[somersault]

prior to the most evil hideous oppressive App Store there was nothing like it...

What about Steam? And all those lame ringtone download systems for phones that wouldn't let you make/use your own? :/

Re:WWW?

[dissy]

prior to the most evil hideous oppressive App Store there was nothing like it...

What about Steam? And all those lame ringtone download systems for phones that wouldn't let you make/use your own? :/

Well none of those that existed before were made by Apple. And this is slashdot, so you won't see anyone admitting they existed let alone are as bad as the app store, for a decade+ before the app store existed...

The troll mods to come will show how against popular opinion those facts are, even if true.

Re:WWW?

[dzfoo]

+1 No sh*t!

I can't mod you up because I already participated in the discussion, but thanks for your comment!

        -dZ.

Re:WWW?

[aesiamun]

There's nothing wrong with Steam. I can buy games on or off of steam. I can move those games to another computer. I can use them on or offline...

In fact the only thing I lose with Steam, is the need to find a CD when I want to install something...

Re:WWW?

[somersault]

I wasn't trying to infer that there is anything wrong with it, I think it's a great system. I was replying to a post claiming that "there was nothing like" the iPhone store before it appeared. Steam is similar, but existed long before the app store.

Miss the Point

[hardburn]

Is the AppStore a neutral network? Should it be?

No, and no.

It's perfectly fine for the Internet to have walled-off sections like this, provided you can opt to go somewhere else if you want. If you don't like the way Apple's App Store has been going (and I don't much like it myself), don't buy an iPhone. There are alternatives both existing now and coming down the pipe soon.

The problem comes with ISPs want to create their own walled-off sections that their customers can't get out of. Since ISPs are often regional monopolies or duopolies, they have too much power to dictate terms to their users, which is why Net Neutrality activists focus on them.

Re:Miss the Point

[ZachPruckowski]

It's perfectly fine for the Internet to have walled-off sections like this, provided you can opt to go somewhere else if you want.

I'd take this a step further. There doesn't even need to be an alternative, there just need to be no major barriers to an alternative existing. This is the case with the App Store (someone can design another phone) but not the case with net neutrality (laying ISP pipes is very capital-intensive).

OMG THEY MAKE US BUY THEIR PRODUCTS

[moohoo]

Yeah they totally make you buy apple products. You don't get to vote on any of that!!!!

Re:OMG THEY MAKE US BUY THEIR PRODUCTS

[Anonymous Coward]

They force us all to pull out our cash or plastic and hand it over to them for a product we dont want. Just like how the Beer companies force us to get drunk and plastered.

*sarcasm off*

Love how people complain of being repressed. If you dont want products/services from an certain company, go to their rival. Simple as that. Sure there are downsides, but thats life son.

nonsensical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh, this guys rant is totally nonsensical. At its core, he's arguing that I should be able to use an FTP client to download torrent files. Leveling the differences between various client-server systems and different protocols is NOT what net neutrality is about.

walled gardens

[digitalsushi]

I know it's a different type of walled garden, but I have to wonder out loud. So right now you have things like Boingo and such, pay-for wifi access at airports, hotels, coffee shops.. these services need DNS access to be open regardless of payment status.

So on a trip last month, I was a dbag and tried something out. I set up a little relay at home that accepted TCP embedded in DNS, and tunneled everything over it. And it was fast. Fast enough for ssh and web browsing, but not video web browsing. (And I didn't want to be a dbag^2, so hence I skipped the youtube).

Anyways, with tools like tcp->dns relays, and tools like me walking around, I wonder how long this dirty little secret will work out. Honestly the threat of being identified in a busy airport with a laptop or coffee shop as a wifi stealer was leaving me in my comfort zone the whole time. Especially with my spoofed mac address identifying my Mac as a Dell.

Access control is the entire necessary sublayer to everything interesting. How's facebook not a walled garden? I can't even email my buddies in there, since I refuse to reopen my old account.

Re:walled gardens

[FlyingSquidStudios]

This sounds a bit to me like the people who argue that if Marijuana were legalized and taxed, everyone would just grow their own and not have to pay taxes on it. In both cases, the effort is often too time consuming and difficult for the average person.

Re:walled gardens

[istartedi]

They'll grow one plant, then it'll be like...

...you mean I have to water this thing, and turn on the light? That's like... work or something, man. Let's just go to the smokeshop and buy some.

Re:walled gardens

[Khashishi]

Right. When was the last time you met someone growing tobacco in order to avoid taxes?

Re:walled gardens

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Anyways, with tools like tcp->dns relays, and tools like me walking around, I wonder how long this dirty little secret will work out.

They'll change the DNS server for unauthed computers to only serve the billing page and redirect all A queries to a single IP. You could probably write that app in a few hours.

Re:walled gardens

[ceoyoyo]

I have trouble believing it's not already in place. I don't remember ever using any closed hotspots that didn't resolve any DNS query to the billing page.

And IP *isn't* a walled garden?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as people write and develop applications and protocols which do not function through NAT, then I cannot take their complaints about people building walled gardens seriously because of the hypocrisy. Without NAT, then everyone exists in a *single* walled garden, a single address space -- you conform, or you don't get in. NAT puts doorways in the walls so that people can move from one garden to another.

How things SHOULD be

[phantomfive]

Basically there should be an infrastructure company and ISPs. The infrastructure company maintains the wires, is 100% neutral, and rents it out to ISPs, all for the same price.

ISPs on the other hand, would be free to do whatever they want. At first this sounds bad, but it wouldn't be because there would be so many ISPs that if one of them did something you didn't like, you could switch. When everyone was on dialup, there were tons of ISPs to choose from. So if one ISP decides to filter things like porn (and lets face it, there are some people who would want that), that's ok, you can switch to another one.

Then everyone can be happy. Orrin Hatch can be happy because there will be competition between ISPs, which is what he professes to want. The rest of us will be happy because there will be more choices than just Comcast, and the competition will result in better service and prices (I've always gotten better service from small ISP companies than large ones. Without exception). The only ones who would suffer would be the current monopolistic providers, but that's ok.

As for Apple, they aren't violating network neutrality because they are governing what can be run on the device, not what can flow over the network. While this is bad, it is more a violation of the four freedoms of software. But while we're complaining about Apple we should complain about the app developers too, because they aren't releasing their source code, either.

If you can't see why this is just as bad, you probably don't understand the four freedoms.

Re:How things SHOULD be

[Anonymous Coward]

This will work only in ideal world - in real one 2 or 3 big boys will buy up whole bandwidth available on wires/fiber so nobody else can get through - you will be forced to buy only from them.

Re:How things SHOULD be

[Orne]

You just described the deregulated Open Access Transmission bulk electric system, which has been in effect since about 1992.

Transmission companies own and maintain the wires, while everyone else purchases transmission service (at various levels of guaranteed flow) for the right to move energy across the system from a point of delivery into the grid to a point of receipt where the energy is removed. The areas of the country that have implemented wholesale deregulation have seen incredible competition; unfortunately, the retail side of the industry has not seen the benefit because of how states seized power through their public utility comissions to slow the deregulation ...

Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Net Neutrality has EXACTLY ONE definition: an ISP is "net neutral" if it prioritizes packets based solely on the content of those packets and the customer which sent/is receiving them, NOT on the third party which is receiving/sending them. It is very important that ISPs remain neutral, and giving it other definitions (or posting random, incoherent bloviations on slashdot that misuse the phrase) does nothing but muddy the waters, and allow ISPs to spread FUD with the authorities: "No, Mr. FCC, we CAN'T have net neutrality! We'd have to give free internet to everyone! Just look what they're saying on slashdot!"

SO STOP IT.

Proprietary wrappers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has had a good track record as of late in supporting open formats. Snow Leopard server is essentially a nice front end to a whole host of open technologies. If that starts to change, then we should worry. Until that day comes I'll enjoy the candy coating on my open source chocolate thankyouverymuch.

Re:Apple fanboi's who cares mod me to hell and bac

[knappe duivel]

Bummer - fanboi's don't even care enough for your stupid rant to mod you down.

Analysis only works if you understand the concept

[93 Escort Wagon]

This is the second time this week I've heard someone who's theoretically part of the tech media discuss "network neutrality" in a way that demonstrates they have no idea what the concept actually means. Earlier this week I was listening to a guy say he was against network neutrality because people who use a higher amount of bandwidth should have to pay more for their internet access than people like him who require less bandwidth.

What's going on here? Why are these people being given any recognition at all? This is Slashdot, ostensibly "News for Nerds" - shouldn't some modicum of filtering be happening? And no, I am not new here...

Why stop with your example...

[thestudio_bob]

Why stop with your example, let's apply it to other things.

1. Why can't I buy MS-Windows from Apple's App Store? OMG its not net-neutral!
2. Why Can't I buy non-software items, such a Nike Shoes from the App Store? OMG its not net-neutral!
3. Why do I have to pay for my PS3 games, it's connected to the internet. OMG its not net-neutral!
4. Why do I have to make house payments, I have an internet connection? OMG its not net-neutral!

I could keep going with these analogies, but they are just about as stupid as the examples given in the article.

NO YOU

[Kickasso]

*You* have restrictions on how many pictures *you* can upload on Flickr. *I* dont, because I pay for the service.

Wrong assumption

[bomanbot]

Well, I was so foolish to RTFA and I am kinda infuriated now. The article tries to make a valid point about the importance of net neutrality and open source, but in my opinion fails horribly to do so because it mixes it up in a hodgepodge of buzzwords and misunderstood and wrongy applied concepts.

I cannot even start to describe what I feel is wrong with this article, but the last paragraph contains two especially big stinkers:

-First, the ill-fated assumption that the performance and the responsiveness of the iPhone is just an "implementation detail" and that Android phones would have an advantage because they have better specs. As if there never have been cases in IT history where the competitors with the better specs lost out (*cough* iPod killers *cough* Console wars *cough*)

-And even more wrong the assumption that just because Android is an open-source implementation, the web itself would become more open. WTF? Why should it make a difference whether the platform with which I access the web is open, when the web application itself isnt (regardless of the fact that both Android and the iPhone use the same browser engine)? And why should for example Amazon (which is named in the article) be more inclined to open up its data when we use an Android device opposed to an iPhone?

I know that the argument that he tries to make is that openness is very important and that we should strive to not get proprietary insulas in the web as we had in traditional applications. But I think that openness he strives for is not necessarily tied to open source and net neutrality, you need better data portability and better access to the data stored inside those web entities, which is a whole different can of worms right there.

So the big mistake of this article is not promoting open source and net neutrality, which are important. The big mistake is assuming those two will be sufficient in achieving the kind of openness that he wants. They wont, but he fails to see that.

Re:Wrong assumption

[Doctor_Jest]

I think the author is confusing the "endpoints" with the "pipes" (for lack of a better analogy). The endpoints (websites, stores, blogs, etc.) NEVER have to be neutral, and by their very nature can exclude anyone and everyone (if they so choose.) The pipes ( bandwidth providers) can (and should) be neutral because to get to the endpoint of my choosing, I should not be hampered by one Pipe's desire for me to head to a different endpoint on the internet. It'd be like having a special 4-lane highway for red cars, and all other cars have to use a 2-lane gravel former logging road to get to town.

Re:Wrong assumption

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there never any mention of Android being a data mining system for Google? Not that Apple and other's don't do the same thing, but it's an important point.

Google didn't create android for any altruistic reason, and they don't care about open source anything. They created android because they see where phones are headed, and they want to be able to track you, index your voice mail, follow your every purchase/discussion/email, and sell what they learn about you to another corporation for the profit of both.

Not that other companies, including Apple, don't do the same or similar things, I'm just amazed that more people don't find that just a little creepy.

Does free-market competition not matter?

[Pengo]

The reality is, we are free to chose with our Dollars which phone we want to buy. Nobody had a gun to my head when i signed a contract on my iPhone.

The reality of it is if i want an open platform, I'll go buy a open phone. At some point developer mindshare might shift towards the Android App Store, but there is no force at work with the app store other than free market control. As it makes financial sense for apple to open up their 'walled garden', they will do so. Until then to legislate what they can or can't sell, or how to control the nature of the content they accept or reject seems like a slippery slope, arguably just as evil as something as broad as the DMCA.

An infringement on a corporations freedom to operate their business is going to be an infringement on my personal freedoms.

We have anti-competitive laws, anti-price fixing laws, all sorts of regulations to promote fair competition and I don't see how this is even an issue.

Google knows that they can't play in Apples sandbox fairly, so what did they do? They are doing exactly what they should be doing and creating a competitive sandbox. They are going to leverage all their corporate offerings to entice the user to play in their sandbox instead. If you think that Google is creating the Android phone to be an open platform to liberate the people from a closed platform like iPhones and the sort, think again. There is a calculation that the mindshare of having people on android will yield more add revenue, and possibly corporate services (hosted apps, etc) than not.

If Android didn't mean $$ for Google, it would be canned faster than a middle-management position at Sun.

The fact that google has an incredible cloud-stack to put behind the Android phones and make it stupid-simple to make it all work together should make Apple VERY VERY nervous.

I expect to see some serious cloud offerings from apple in the near future to counter this juggernaut google, who has the iPhone square in their cross-hairs.

The stakes are -huge- for smart phone market share. Google understands that this is the next stage of their growth to maintain global search and adword marketshare they currently enjoy.

The king is dead, long live the king. Competition.

Re:Does free-market competition not matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here! Here! Agreed completely. The world is a competitive place, and all I see on this thread is people whining about open-ness, compatibility and car analogies. If you don't like what you're looking at in a free market economy, take your dollar elsewhere. There are always choices, and always will be. Why scrap and whine over the petty details? Google has everything Apple does, with the notable addition of the fact that they control MASSIVE amounts of information. Apple will most definitely be nervous because they have an information giant creeping up behind them, which offers a very similar product with access to nearly infinite amounts of data. Cheap.

Re:Apple fanboi's who cares mod me to hell and bac

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot to replace 'apple' with 'abble'

iapps

[flahwho]

The apple app store is definately NOT net neutral and, one: why would it have to be, and two: how does it really affect the rest of the web and the net neutrality disputes out there? I'm just sayin'.

Re:Avoid Taxes

[TaoPhoenix]

Wrong Analogy.

"How soon will we see people brewing their own now that Mass State both increased the sales tax and removed the alcohol exemption?"

+1 History.
Prohibition failed because brewing is fast and modular. Smash a (nasty) batch of something together in 5 days and spend an hour cleaning it up.

Apple neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently, the apple app store may pass the neutrality test for many people. But the current state of neutrality is determined by one company - Apple. If being neutral is no longer good business, it is just a corporate decision away from being taken away. You may argue that, by then, users can switch to Android or other open platforms. However, the article is about the trend of giving up market share and thus power/profit towards potential net-neutrality hazards.

There's nothing wrong for Apple or Microsoft to build their proprietary lock-in products. It is just the consumer behavior that causes equally or reasonably good open-source options to not win it's deserving share of the market.

"Network Neutrality" sucks

[david_thornley]

The concept is great. It should be mandated on anybody who's got any sort of monopoly or choke point over other people's communications.

The phrase sucks. Almost everybody gets it wrong.

"Common Carrier" would be a better phrase. People claim that network neutrality means that high bandwidth users couldn't be charged more, but nobody claims I should be able to ship fifty boxes of clothes for the same price as one. People claim that network neutrality means that ISPs couldn't do quality of service, but I can make contracts for priority delivery of goods, or have them shipped refrigerated, or whatever, and am under restrictions when shipping certain items.

A common carrier is one that will carry everybody's stuff, for the standard rates. An ISP practicing net neutrality will carry everybody's packets, for the standard rates.

In this case, somebody's complaining that the App Store is restricted, and comparing that to Comcast restricting things. (Much like the idea that, since I should be able to drive wherever I like on public roads, I should have access to private clubs that I can drive to.) When dealing with common carriers, I don't have to ship anything to you, or receive anything from you, but if we decide we want to we can ship things freely.

Re:"Network Neutrality" sucks

[ceoyoyo]

There are two things "quality of service" can mean. As an example of the first, your VOIP packet might get higher priority on the network than my bittorrent packet so that it arrives more quickly. That is, the network is manipulated so that your packet experiences less latency. What actually seems to be the case is that certain services get their capacity throttled.

The latter is really just an admission that you've oversold the capacity on your network, dressed up as a network neutrality issue.

Apple != carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

Net neutrality is about carriers discriminating against certain types of traffic. Apple is not a carrier. End of story.

Another "industry analyst" who doesn't know the industry. Indeed, the link he provides to cio.com doesn't mention

Lock-In, Not the Network

[Doc Ruby]

The App Store is not a network, except for the intranet at Apple that it runs on. Intranets are not subject to network neutrality, and the App Store's is totally irrelevant to this. Neither is AT&T's network required to be neutral for traffic that is totally confined to it.

The public Internet, like any "common carrier" network (whether data, or TV, or railroads as originally legislated), must be neutral to prevent unfair competition.

The App Store is fundamentally faulty because iPhones are locked into it. That is also true of all US phones locked into their wireless carrier's network, but that problem in common is the lock-in, not "Network Neutrality".

The App Store faces competition from Android primarily because the Android doesn't lock in to a single, vendor controlled app store. Google's work in recent years to break the phone/network lockin also indicates Android phones will probably get out of that bundling, too, well before iPhones do. The App Store's "vertical monopoly" should be broken by competition, from Android and others.

Indeed, Mac desktop software used to be locked in by Apple, too. Every app needed a 32 bit code ("Creator" code) controlled by Apple to identify it to the desktop, associate it with files, etc, or the app wouldn't work under the OS. Apple required every app to be submitted for registration before releasing the code. Apple was known to block some apps from reaching desktops by withholding the code, for reasons at the sole discretion of Apple. After a while, that ended, because the load of evaluating all the apps was too heavy for Apple to keep paying for, because enough people complained, and because the constrained app market looked worse than the totally unrestrained availability of every kind of app under Windows.

The sooner the iPhone and app store go that way, especially to compete with Google's Android Market, the better. But abusing the definition of "network" to get there, which will dilute efforts to get actual public networks to be properly neutral to content and endpoints (already with the cards stacked against it), will be only counterproductive.

Re:Lock-In, Not the Network

[Anonymous Coward]

> Indeed, Mac desktop software used to be locked in by Apple, too.

Blatant misinformation. Creator Code Registration was a self-administered regulation so that people didn't stop on each others' toes. Today we use reverse-DNS naming in our uniform type identifiers so we don't need to register anything.

Or are you going to turn around and start complaining about IANA port numbers next, you FUD-mongering troll?

Re:Lock-In, Not the Network

[not-my-real-name]

Indeed, Mac desktop software used to be locked in by Apple, too. Every app needed a 32 bit code ("Creator" code) controlled by Apple to identify it to the desktop, associate it with files, etc, or the app wouldn't work under the OS. Apple required every app to be submitted for registration before releasing the code. Apple was known to block some apps from reaching desktops by withholding the code, for reasons at the sole discretion of Apple. After a while, that ended, because the load of evaluating all the apps was too heavy for Apple to keep paying for, because enough people complained, and because the constrained app market looked worse than the totally unrestrained availability of every kind of app under Windows.

Or you could do what I did for some personal Apps and just pick a code. I'm sure that a bunch of small time software writers did the same thing. The code was 32 bits displayed as 4 characters. If you picked some strange characters, you were usually pretty safe. If there were collisions, those in the know could go in with ResEdit and change the creator code.

Re:Lock-In, Not the Network

[Doc Ruby]

No, you're wrong. I worked for Apple in the 1990s, while the registration was in effect. Code registration was necessary to avoid collisions, which would mess up a desktop by crossing the two apps with their data. Sure, someone could pick their own code, but that was playing dice with the desktop universe. Apple used to deny the registration to some apps the company didn't like.

Central registration of unique codes isn't always authoritarian. But Apple used it to be. Meanwhile, Windows used a much larger namespace, 128 bit GUIDs, for the same purpose, which was better suited to their open app landscape.

Instead of posting inflammatory accusations, Anonymous Coward, why not just disagree, and get proven wrong without looking like a jerk?

Re:Lock-In, Not the Network

[Anonymous Coward]

You claimed that if one failed to register a creator code, "the app wouldn't work under the OS".

What versions of the Mac OS enforced the use of registered Creator Codes? None that I can recall...

How would this whole creator-code verification scheme work anyway? How did the OS determine whether the creator code was registered? A local registry? An central online database? The latter would have been problematic in the days when being connected 24/7 was a rarity.

What was the enforcement mechanism if I used a Mac application with an unsanctioned Creator Code from Info-Mac or a similar shareware repository?

What was the message that the user received when an unsanctioned application was launched?

I've used Macs since the mid-80's and have never encountered a single app that would not run due to a Creator Code issue. Are you claiming that Apple actually approved those Sub-Genius applications that I once played around with?

Re:Lock-In, Not the Network

[bnenning]

Sure, someone could pick their own code, but that was playing dice with the desktop universe.

The AC is obnoxious but essentially correct. Apple had no way of stopping anybody from releasing their app with an unapproved creator code; it's not at all comparable to their control over iPhone apps.

No-one forces you to go Apple

[presidenteloco]

Net neutrality matters most at the basic transport level.
Because then, if I want to choose Apple's protective
yet limited "walled garden of eden" I can, or I can
choose the wild west, as long as I brought my six gun
and know how to make my own campfire from belly button
lint and a couple of stones.
I think it is good to have both levels of choice and freedom.
I personally give up freedom for the iPhone's superior
usability and app quality control (less cruft to sort through.)

I may find a fart app, but it will be an easy to use fart app.
On cellphones, speed of understanding of and operation of
the app is paramount. I'm happy so far with Apple's design
guidelines, and mostly, with their editorial choices. I have
the freedom to move on if I don't like it.

Apple and google are in two very different busines

[Fastfwd]

..businesses.

Apple is a hardware company that makes software to add value to the hardware it sells. OS X is just a happy accident and the realization that people are looking for whole solutions, not just the best pieces.
Google is an ad company. Search results are one way to get eyes on the ads but they will use any other way(maps, email, social networking, ...)

It's very hard to get real competition at any level in the whole computer/internet/OS/mobile markets.
Internet is very geography dependent and most people can only choose from 2 providers who often do not seem to compete at all.
Computers are now largely PC but still there is AMD and Intel and anyone else wanting to join would need serious OS support for the hardware to sell.
The OS is largely windows but somehow linux and OSX still find a niche to play in.
Smartphones are a mess. Tons of different OS, hard to find app stores/shareware, freeware, uselessware. I think that in the end Smartphones are going to be just one spectrum of the computerworld like a sub-subnotebook and will end up running linux, OSX or windows

As a consumer what you should really want is whatever makes you life better/easier as cheap as possible. And this is where Apple shines from its great integration of all layers of the solution(hardware, syncing, app store). Linux will shine from its low cost and easy portability. I quite frankly don't see why someone would want windows on its phone, I really can't see why you would want it on your laptop unless your software only works on windows.

Google throws a nice curve into all this from not being a company that should be involved in any of this except maybe the app store part. They obviously realized that smartphones are the laptop of the future just like laptops of today and the desktop of the past for a lot of people. They needed more control and decided to just grab the part they needed and outsource the hardware building part.

We'll see how all of this plays out but right now I can't imagine Samsung,Lg, Motorola and others not becoming predominantly linux based in the future and probably android based as long as google leaves it wide open. Nokia is going with Maemo but seems to want to keep symbian too. Apple still has the more polished solution and the best end to end control... they were even able to control distribution and part of the carrier network to get their visual voicemail working.

I predict that whoever gets the best app store(in quality and price, not quantity) will win in the long term. So it's up to Apple, Google and Nokia to make sure the good developers WANT to develop for them.

Re:Analysis only works if you understand the conce

[Anonymous Coward]

You are seeing the term being co-opted for a different use. I am not sure that is a bad thing.

In the case you probably were arguing with someone it was probably about bandwidth caps. 'Net neutrality' got tied to 'capping' pretty quick. As they are just different ways to make money off the network. With the provider on one side and the consumer on the other and the guy owning the road laughing all the way to the bank. It just depends on who is getting charged the money determines what term is tied to it. As in reality they are just different slices of the same thing. Creating some sort of artificial scarcity to create a revenue stream.

Lets call it what it really is, price gouging. The thing is the providers of the networks know they can become a commodity very quickly. So they are trying to attach value to their network. But instead of actually adding value (such as new better services or faster lines) they are just changing the terms of the contract and creating an artificial scarcity of network.

What I am saying is maybe we are putting to fine of a point on the term 'network neutrality'. Where as instead of building more and more awesome networks. They are looking for more and more ways to piss off the very people who want to use their network.

They even managed to get partisan politics involved in this. You only have to follow the money to see it. Creating dozens upon dozens of astroturf groups. They are dictating the terms of the conversation away from themselves. I think putting to fine of a point on the term 'network neutrality' only hurts the overall problem and gives them a 'us vs them' to work with.

The real problem is a lack of competition because of who owns the wires and how they are treating those wires. When the ISPs and the wire owners became one in the same competition ceased to exist. In the late 90s I had dozens of ISPs to chose from with fair prices (hell a few even made a go at 'free'). Now I have 2 who each charge 40+ per month. I am seriously amazed they havent figured it out that they could make stupid crazy amounts of money by reselling their networks to other ISPs. But instead want to be the only one with money.

Apple decides who accesses their customers

[metoc]

Apple goal of late (at least since Steve Jobs return) is to return to the glory days of IBM and DEC. During the 60 & 70's IBM, DEC and almost all computer makers owned and controlled everything about their product lines. They build and serviced all the hardware and wrote almost all of the software. If you were a ISV or 3rd party you need to go through them/work by their rules to get access to their customers.

Apple is doing the same thing. They want complete control over their customer base. Want to sell an Apple customer software or accessories? You need to sell it through the App Store or include an Apple provided chip in your accessory, and they decide who sells through the App Store and who can make accessories. My only surprise is why they haven't started to lock down their computers and Mac OS.

So to be clear. If you own an Apple product you are an Apple customer first and foremost. And Apple decides who can sell software and hardware to you.

As always their are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

Re:Apple decides who accesses their customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely, and they are 100% within their rights to do so. It's the business model that they have chosen to use to present their product to their customers.

But don't put vendor lock-in in the same category as net neutrality. The unfortunate truth is that most people have very little understanding of what net neutrality is all about and something like this only confuses the issue.

Re:Analysis only works if you understand the conce

[DerekLyons]

This is the second time this week I've heard someone who's theoretically part of the tech media discuss "network neutrality" in a way that demonstrates they have no idea what the concept actually means.

You assume that "network neutrality" is a technical or legal term with a widely shared and unambiguous meaning.
 
It isn't. "Network neutrality" is a buzzword and marketdroid speak with a variety of somewhat overlapping meanings - and which meaning is meant depends on the speaker and the audience.

Four categories of devices by their app power

[tepples]

Oh wait, I think you forgot one

There are four categories:

1. Devices marketed for running only one application. These include handheld calculators, DVRs, satellite navigation devices, entry-level mobile phones, cameras, vehicles, and HDTVs.
2. Devices marketed for running only applications from developers hand-picked by the device maker. These include any Nintendo or PlayStation system.
3. Devices marketed for running applications from any developer, subject to a few non-discriminatory conditions. These include iPod Touch, iPhone, and arguably Xbox 360.
4. Devices marketed for running applications from any developer, full stop. These include Macs, other PCs, PDAs, and some smartphones.

The common sentiment I've seen on Slashdot is to object to category 2 more than 3, and 3 more than 1 and 4.

Re:Four categories of devices by their app power

[ajs]

There are four categories:

1. Devices marketed for running only one application. These include handheld calculators, DVRs, satellite navigation devices, entry-level mobile phones, cameras, vehicles, and HDTVs.

Not so. My car runs a number of apps on its in-dash system which range from engine monitoring to navigation to environmental controls.

My DVR runs apps from Netflix, Amazon and a plethora of other vendors.

1. Devices marketed for running only applications from developers hand-picked by the device maker. These include any Nintendo or PlayStation system.

I believe that the iPhone belongs in this category, since there really is no difference at all besides the exposure of the development kit to a larger audience.

So, I understand that you're able to categorize, but I don't see the point.

Re:Four categories of devices by their app power

[tepples]

My car runs a number of apps on its in-dash system which range from engine monitoring to navigation to environmental controls.

By "only one application" I did not intend to exclude multifunction devices. I meant "only one set of features that came with the device, with none to be installed later".

My DVR runs apps from Netflix, Amazon and a plethora of other vendors.

Then it's on the fence between category 1 and category 2.

I believe that the iPhone belongs in this category, since there really is no difference at all besides the exposure of the development kit to a larger audience.

In practice, broader exposure of the development kit makes a big difference. Competition among anyone who has $1,000 for a Mac and an iPod Touch (in category 3) has driven down the price of games on the App Store compared to on DS or PSP, its closest competitors in category 2.

So, I understand that you're able to categorize, but I don't see the point.

Once the domain of discourse has been categorized, people can make and debate assertions about each category. For example, if no device in a particular category has become successful, people can discuss the reasons, whether or not this lack is a market failure, and whether free enterprise or government interference caused this lack.

Re:Four categories of devices by their app power

[jedidiah]

> My DVR runs apps from Netflix, Amazon and a plethora of other vendors.

No. It runs one app with plugins for things like Netflix or Amazon.

It is essentially a variant of WebTV or one of those old Word Processor machines.

Re:Four categories of devices by their app power

[ajs]

> My DVR runs apps from Netflix, Amazon and a plethora of other vendors.

No. It runs one app with plugins for things like Netflix or Amazon.

It is essentially a variant of WebTV or one of those old Word Processor machines.

I'm not sure I follow. How is that different from an iPhone which runs one app (Springboard) and several plugins (some from Apple and some from other vendors)?

Are you prepared to cite a formal definition of app vs plugin for the sake of this discussion?

We want the closed store

[tjstork]

Most consumers want the closed store. The store is not just a place where goods are sold, but a vision of what the owners of that store hold to be ideal. To say that you should have the right to trump what Apple decides should or should not be in the store is the same sort of artistic infringement that says you should be able to change the ending of star wars. If you don't like Apple's vision, make your own store, with your vision.

Re:We want the closed store

[bnenning]

The complaint is not the store exists. It's that Apple goes out of their way to prevent you from getting software from any other source, and claims that you're a criminal if you try.

Re:We want the closed store

[tjstork]

The complaint is not the store exists. It's that Apple goes out of their way to prevent you from getting software from any other source, and claims that you're a criminal if you try.

What do you mean, do you think people are incapable of

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=mac+software

Re:We want the closed store

[bnenning]

I'm talking about the iPhone, not the Mac. (And the iPod touch as well, where any arguments about what the big bad carriers are making them do goes out the window). Apple does exactly what they should do with the Mac; they sell a subset of the available software, but make no attempt to close off other distribution methods.

Re:Analysis only works if you understand the conce

[Anonymous Coward]

Filtering! No way, no how, I won't stand for it, I support Network Neutrality, get your filthy filtering out of here!

Re:Avoid Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever seriously looked at the price of homebrewing ingredients and supplies? Yes, you can certainly get fucked up for cheap if you're willing to make + drink Pruno, but most people have a little higher standards than that. If you're actually trying to make something decent, homebrew ends up costing more, not to mention the effort involved.

Re:Analysis only works if you understand the conce

[hitmark]

while true, i would claim that at its core is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

Focusing on the AppStore Misses the Point

[coaxial]

All this talk about the AppStore misses the point. You're dealing with handset manufacturers. They've always been BDSM. The real walled garden is Facebook, Twitter, and yes Google. (All though to their credit, Google did announce some form of data portability, but I wonder about its practicality.) It's cloud applications (whatever those are). It's the fact that for a variety of our personal tasks now, we must rely on others to run them. The data has gotten too big, and we've lost control.

If you think Google is going to rescue you from Apple, you're sorely mistaken. Apple is a niche. Google is the new Microsoft. They're the behemoth that is looking to control the world now. Haven't you ever wondered what Google Toolbar, GMail, GoogleApps, Wave and all the like are for? They're to slurp everything into their datacenter and then turn around and sell you things.

We've moved from from open standard, and ubiquitous email to writing on walls on Facebook. What did it give us? Twitter is popular for some reason, but not only are you arbitrarily limited to 140 chars, but all your status updates get locked away. Why are photos being uploaded back behind walls where are data checks in, but never checks out. Supposably it's more convenient, but it's nothing that RSS couldn't give you. Maybe there needed to be some sort of service that provided RSS for the masses, a turn key simple blog and photo gallery in one place, but it's all locked away, and I suspect we lost something. And yet if we think about leaving, we are giving up the ease of communicating with our more distant social network.

Facebook is here to stay, and I suspect that our data will never be the same.

Look at where Governor is right

[michaelhawk]

Sometimes crafting a good answer means ignoring certain elements of the conversation that impede a good answer. Lesson for the autistics in the room. It is the (2nd!) 40th anniversary of the Internet this week, and the network is exploding with activity. It is worth thinking about the direction we are going in. 10 years ago, open protocols ruled the Internet. We ran clients that followed rules available to anyone. Today open protocols are used to transport proprietary, closed systems. HTTP sends us Facebook. Instead of an RFC defining an open protocol on social networking, to which Facebook humbly obeys, we obey Facebook. As closed proprietary systems effectively gain monopolies over ways-of-doing-things, it makes it more difficult to imagine a world without them. We risk becoming digital serfs. We hand our information to corporations to do with as they please. We pour energies helping to develop products that we ultimately have no control over. It doesn't really matter if our software is GPL'd if the platform upon which it runs is proprietary, like Facebook or the iPhone/iPod. They can change their protocols over night, granting or revoking access at will. This control is real, and it has political and social implications. It really has nothing to do with the right of every company to decide for themselves how their network will function, or the complicity of the consumer in producing this result, two points raised in comments dismissing this article. That is just how things are. We need to think about how things ought to be. What should it look like even in the face of the right of the proprietary powers, and unfortunate consumer complicity? Android will not be the answer. Google is part of the problem. Perhaps the recent crackdown on piracy will lead to P3P (that's P2P with some awesome anonymity ensuring 3ncryption) massively shared infrastructures upon which alternatives can be developed. The motivation to access movies and music online is a great motivator, proven by the popularity of BitTorrent. Piggyback onto that other functions. But will this motivator always exist? In the next 10 years, incredibly cheap music and movie downloads may become the rule, siphoning the casual downloader off onto closed, proprietary systems. Without mass participation, there will be little energy for the work, little effect, and no real defense. This may amuse some ears. File sharers are the proletariat of our generation, the revolutionary class. When they are bought off, a whole world of possibility will disappear. As long as they exist -as long as the desire for free content and a corresponding war against that exists- there will be energy for grand new software projects. Let's make those projects open, and let's make them now.

BabyShaker

[Anonymous Coward]

The instant that Apple removed the BabyShaker app, I knew that the iPhone and iTouch were not for me.

Me Bigot: Hate Apple

[fast turtle]

I'll admit that I'm an Apple Bigot because I hate closed systems. Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt and Scars. Used a TRS80 for business and can't get any of the data out other then to print it out. Used a Tandy 1000 and have plenty of data locked into that format. Moved to PC's after COmpaq succeeded in reverse engineering the IBM Bios and have been able to move the resulting data to newer systems as needed due to the open standards. In other words Open Standards rock and I'll never be locked into a single Vendor's idea like Apple does and how IBM started with the PC.

Now with proper formatting

[michaelhawk]

How can the Slashdot script not paragraph breaking right?

Sometimes crafting a good answer means ignoring certain elements of the conversation that impede a good answer. Lesson for the autistics in the room.

It is the (2nd!) 40th anniversary of the Internet this week, and the network is exploding with activity. It is worth thinking about the direction we are going in. 10 years ago, open protocols ruled the Internet. We ran clients that followed rules available to anyone.

Today open protocols are used to transport proprietary, closed systems. HTTP sends us Facebook. Instead of an RFC defining an open protocol on social networking, to which Facebook humbly obeys, we obey Facebook. As closed proprietary systems effectively gain monopolies over ways-of-doing-things, it makes it more difficult to imagine a world without them. We risk becoming digital serfs. We hand our information to corporations to do with as they please. We pour energies helping to develop products that we ultimately have no control over. It doesn't really matter if our software is GPL'd if the platform upon which it runs is proprietary, like Facebook or the iPhone/iPod. They can change their protocols over night, granting or revoking access at will.

This control is real, and it has political and social implications.

It really has nothing to do with the right of every company to decide for themselves how their network will function, or the complicity of the consumer in producing this result, two points raised in comments dismissing this article. That is just how things are. We need to think about how things ought to be. What should it look like even in the face of the right of the proprietary powers, and unfortunate consumer complicity?

Android will not be the answer. Google is part of the problem.

Perhaps the recent crackdown on piracy will lead to P3P (that's P2P with some awesome anonymity ensuring 3ncryption) massively shared infrastructures upon which alternatives can be developed. The motivation to access movies and music online is a great motivator, proven by the popularity of BitTorrent. Piggyback onto that other functions. But will this motivator always exist? In the next 10 years, incredibly cheap music and movie downloads may become the rule, siphoning the casual downloader off onto closed, proprietary systems. Without mass participation, there will be little energy for the work, little effect, and no real defense against government intrusion.

This may amuse some ears. File sharers are the proletariat of our generation, the revolutionary class. When they are bought off, a whole world of possibility will disappear. As long as they exist -as long as the desire for free content and a corresponding war against that exists- there will be energy for grand new software projects. Let's make those projects open, and let's make them now.

Exactly. This article is just silly!

[oogoliegoogolie]

Net neutrality from the start always has been about 'network' neutrality, not application neutrality. NN is about the right for you to access any location without your provider or anyone upstream blocking or hindering your access. (eg. traffic shaping,etc.) Apple hardly has the only smartphone, so if you don't like it then buy something from Palm, HTC, RIM, etc, etc. You can purchase mp3's and movies from anywhere and put them on the iPhone.

Apple deserves some criticism for their zealous control over the iphone and applications, but in this case the writer just wanted to spew more anti-Apple garbage, and shame on kdawson for publishing it.

Network neutrality

[DragonWriter]

Is the AppStore a neutral network?

No. In the first place, neutrality aside, its not a network.

Now, one could sensibly ask whether AT&T's wireless data network to which the iPhone attaches is a neutral network (to which the answer is clearly "no").

Re:Analysis only works if you understand the conce

[Anonymous Coward]

What's going on here? Why are these people being given any recognition at all? This is Slashdot, ostensibly "News for Nerds" - shouldn't some modicum of filtering be happening? And no, I am not new here...

You must be... oh.

Microsoft is the one you need to worry about!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're the ones who broke the web with the proprietary web standards via Internet Explorer. I if Microsoft has their way, the web would only be accessible via a Windows PC!

WTF?

[Angst Badger]

As we rush to purchase Apple products and services on Cupertino's monochrome treadmill of shiny shiny

We? Like the overwhelming majority of the human race, I have not purchased an iPhone. I did buy an Apple product once -- the Apple //e back in 1985. I really wanted a IIgs, but wasn't interested in the Mac when it came out, so I migrated to the PC. Didn't much care for Windows 95 when it came out, so I migrated to Linux, though there are a number of things I have to have Windows to do. Microsoft remains a pain in the ass, though much less than it was back when Linux was less mature.

But Apple? While I have no doubt that they would be at least as obnoxious as Microsoft if they had Microsoft's market share -- they control both the OS and the hardware and the network (in the case of the iPhone, anyway) -- Apple has absolutely no effect on my life, aside from occasionally having to listen to one of my friends gush about their Apple products. Good for them; I'm glad they like it, but I have different needs and tastes and plenty of alternatives.

Here's a hint for people who feel constrained by Apple: buy something else. There are alternatives, some of which are pretty good if less fashionable, and if it affects their sales enough, Apple will be obliged to change to continue to attract customers. If you're an irrational fanboy who keeps buying Apple's (or any other company's) products no matter how much they screw you, you have no one to blame but yourself.

What the hell?

[KharmaWidow]

Wow - irrational Apple hate. We sure hate those are successful...

Apple's network is closed for quality issues, but still the most open network in regards to user accessibility. We have more to fear from special interest biased politicians - and politicians in general - than we do from Apple who makes things we actually like and work. Compared to Apple products, the work politicians have done in the last 100 years are still in an extreame pre-alpha instable and buggy phase. Why would anyone value a politician's opinion to begin with?

A company has an obligation to insure the quality of the products and services it said. If we look at Microsoft - their 3rd party contributors are riddled with incompatibilities and gaping security holes. Not to mention the MS etremely closed media system is worse than the Apple system. Half of MS media doesnt even work with MS media apps. Apple's iTunes etc are available to the most computer users regardless of their OS. Where was this yahoo politician 5 years ago when MS was the only solution?

As for things like software, apps, etc. Closed systems is standard amongst video game consoles, video games (PS[x], Nintendo,XBox, Sony hardware in general, Adobe Flash) And consumers are generally OK with it. How is the iPhone any different? Sure we all bitch about it - I know I bitched about not being able to play MS media for years. When Apple delivered something I could access I jumped on it. And everyone else is jumping on it because it works the best. Apple is the quality leader that all other computer software and hardware makers strive to be.