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."
I’m personally not a fan of the whole “app” thing. Feels like we are going backwards.
You had specialized viewers and clients for various data, then gradually the web became more mature and more and more data was simply put on a website. Now we are gradually going back to the specialized viewer mentality.
OS integration and a few features like GPS and multi-touch are one justification, and there are certainly cases where it does make sense to have a specialized client vice a web app to view content from the web, however I think a lot of it has to do with money.
You can’t sell a subscription to a website (unless you’ve got some really damn good content), but you can sell a little app that pulls data off your website and displays it in a different manner.
We had a shitty but effective standard going here.. and I fear this whole “app” craze is going to put us back in the “dark ages”.
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.
All those hours spent gazing fondly at your picture at the top of every Wikipedia page. Installing the Jimmy Wales extension for Chromium, so I could see you everywhere. Knowing that you were looking just at me...
You have betrayed me, Jimmy, with your false generalization of software distribution systems. Words cannot express the anger and shame I feel.
I want my $2.50 back.
Just another proletarian malcontent.
"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.
Don't discount the impact of the masses. If all the kids and Grandma switch primarily to using apps on their phone, then it is not unreasonable to think the web would begin to stagnate and languish. Certainly people could continue to operate web sites, but the significance might be greatly diminished. Gopher is still around.
Back in the 1990s I remember that people used to cry that corporations wanted the internet to be "tv with a 'buy now' button". The app model seems to be much more in that direction.
...you can't open a private "App Store" for OS X
Sure you can. In fact, I think it might even be a viable business model. Clone the app store right down to using the same formats to make things easy. Roll your own payment and update system (preferably identical to Apple's but independent). Make a huge, public promise to never, ever, ever reject any app for any reason other than it being malware. Do actual due diligence on the apps, target both apps in the app store and apps that can't get into the app store. Make a deal with Adobe and Microsoft both of whom want Apple to have less power. Charge less than 30%, say 25%, what have developers got to lose by putting their apps in your store too? Build in features Apple is lacking, like demo/trail versions of software.
What's stopping you?
Bodega (http://www.appbodega.com) called, and wanted a word with you, but it appears as if you've just FUD'ed them out of existence. :(
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.