Slashdot Mirror
Jimmy Wales Declares App Store Models a Threat
An anonymous reader writes "Wikipedia's chief says models such as the App Store on the iPad are not only a dangerous chokepoint to internet freedom, but that this is a real and immediate problem that's of more concern than the overblown what if's of the net neutrality debate."
But not like the one on Android, since you can still install apks from other sources, or use third party app stores.
The only problem with app stores is when it is inordinately difficult to install software from another source. People have been buying stuff from non-recommended sources since time immemorial to upgrade anything and everything.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That means sweatshops for iPods
The same sweatshops making your beloved Android phones as well.
"Specialized viewer mentality" has always been there.
Sony loves it. They only put DVD players in the PS2 because they were part of the consortium that owned the patents. They put Blu-Ray in the PS3 because... they own the patents. They used their proprietary memory card tech in the PSP and PS3 because... you guess it... they own the patents. In the early days of MP3 players, they were trying to shove minidisc and ATRAC down everyone's throats because, guess what... THEY OWNED THE PATENTS.
We now have Amazon Kindle Store, B&N Nook Store, etc because everyone wants to try to lock their customer into their devices. Want to switch to Kindle? Ok, but you can't take all the Nook books you bought with you (without cracking the DRM, being accused of "piracy", etc etc).
Every corporation loves the idea of the specialized viewer because it locks the customer in to their store. Every consumer with a brain hates the idea, but has nowhere else to turn to except "piracy."
But apps offer persistence; you don't have to reload them every time you want to use them.
One thing most apps also offer that the web browser doesn't is they work when you don't have internet access.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
"App Stores" are quite arguably a good thing. I know that I say a few words of thanks every time I type 'sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade' and everything automagically pulls from the repositories and does its thing. It absolutely curb-stomps the experience of a zillion separate updaters, obsolete library versions, and so forth.
On the other hand, an implementation where my apt-sources are cryptographically signed, and the BIOS refuses to boot if the list has been modified, would be a dark day indeed. That, to my mind, is the actual threat.
Although they haven't been called "app stores" in the past, package management systems kick ass, and are generally far superior in user experience to just grabbing random stuff off the internet and installing it. However, any entity who would restrict you exclusively to their own package management system fancies themselves your master and will soon be your rent-collecting landlord.
The basic issue at hand is that the majority of people don't have time for anything more than "it just works." What they want is appliance computing, and that's what App stores enable. This is the reason Apple has had so much success lately, and why they won't ever be loved by Slashdot. Personally, I'm happy to roll my own OpenBSD kernels for my media server and firewall at home, but when it comes to my phone I'll take Steve Jobs' walled garden. I don't have the time for anything else, and I really need my phone to "just work".
True general-purpose computing exists on the desktop and will continue to do so - but the consequences of that model will be continued security issues far in excess of the walled garden's, compatibility issues due to a functionally infinite number of hardware configurations to support, and abandonment by any developers unwilling to tolerate piracy/off-label usage of their applications [some might say 'good riddance' to the latter, but there's an awful lot of money and talent in that pool that will be spent making the walled gardens more attractive].
As far as the open source and freedom-to-code communities go, they can either approach this with ineffectual wailing and gnashing of teeth, or they can resolve to make this work for them. How? By building compelling services that are free-as-in-speech on general-purpose computers, and charging nominal fees for viewers targeting closed platforms, the proceeds from which are used to fund further development. I suspect we're about to witness a period of brutal natural selection in which the greater software ecosystem culls out those who refuse to embrace and leverage the new environment.
We'll find out, either way.
--Ryv
That means sweatshops for iPods...
See, this right here is what pisses me off. Offhanded comments about sweatshops in relation to Apple. So Apple is one of the very few companies going out of their way to do something about sweatshops. They voluntarily audit and review humans rights practices at the third world plants they do business with, have standards of behavior, require changes at those plants, and openly publish their audits. This puts them right at the top of the list for responsible electronics manufacture. Moreover, Steve Jobs tried the experiment of all US manufacturing with Next, but people decided automated manufactured computers in the US were too expensive and he had to sell out to Apple and go back to asian manufacturing.
So what pisses me off about your comment is that if people like you are spreading crap about one of the most responsible companies (presumably out of ignorance), what motivation do they have to continue with responsible practices? Seriously, if they get just as much shit as other companies doing business with the same factories, but who don't do audits or require changes or publish the audits, why should Apple do anything in that regard? The last time Apple published an audit, the press immediately jumped on it and reported on human rights abuses by Apple (not that Apple had discovered problems, ordered them fixed, and then told everyone) just that abuses were happening at "Apple" factories.
Thanks ever so much for being part of the problem and spreading crap that will pressure companies to do less due diligence and be less open and proactive about sweatshop conditions.
Or more to the point, when did apt, or rpm restrict your access to some package you wanted to install.
Perhaps we should agree not to feed the trolls.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
the fact that one of your edits have been shunned does not make it a less valid source.
Actually it does. Wikipedia was supposed to be the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but it has long since lost its neutrality.
Actually when you start with a patently obvious untenable premise (that anyone can edit an encyclopedia) it should come as no surprise that you will fall short of that goal.
The Abuses within Wikipedia's controlling board are well documented. Challenges to their political views are simply not allowed.
Wiki is a good resource, but it should never be a source.
You can start there. Just never end there.
The more controversial the subject, the less trustworthy Wiki is. And the more the gatekeepers abuse their powers.
And don't expect the Wikipedia "Mod Army" to treat your post (or mine) kindly.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.