No, it was created by Android, Inc., which Google later bought. If you're going to be pedantic about it...
Android is not like iPhone OS in very many ways. It's a competitor sure, but tit for tat is petty childish stuff. Wanting to make their own system because they think they can do better is hardly a sin.
No, they aren't doing it because they think they can do better. They're doing it because they want to get their ads on the increasingly lucrative smartphone market.
Saying they deserve punishment for it is, frankly, wrong. Apple approved, then unapproved Google's app because they wanted to make their own (I forget which app it was, exactly, I recall it being a big deal though).
First off, Apple didn't approve, then unapprove, Google Voice. And no, Apple did not make their own Google Voice app (or Apple Voice app, or anything like that). They didn't approve it because it was designed to replace the core phone functionality of the iPhone, which is very consistent with Apple's previous actions.
But all that aside, it's extremely ironic that you say Apple shouldn't retaliate against Google for Android, but that Google should retaliate against Apple for not approving Google Voice.
Rather than compete in their own marketplace, they decided to stifle the competition so their app would be the only option. That is just plain evil.
Name one such app that Apple has in the App Store that they refuse competing apps for. The only thing they do that is even similar to what you are saying is they don't approve apps that replace certain fundamental functions of the iPhone. This isn't due to competition, but due to wanting to ensure a specific, consistent user experience that has a certain level (to Apple, at least) of quality. You may not agree with their decision to do things like this, but it's worked well for them, and it's absolutely absurd to call it "evil".
So it sounds like Google has simply said "Fine, if you don't want to work with us, why should we work with you?" What it means is now pretty much everything but the iPhone will have the best free turn-by-turn navigation system on the planet. Way to go Apple!
Yawn. If the single biggest knock against Apple is that they don't have Google's GPS Nav app, Apple is still coming out ahead in the game.
Even with all that, Google didn't say they *won't* release their app for the iPhone, and from a business standpoint, it would be counterproductive for them to specifically *not* create one. The reason is that they will be deliberately missing out on revenue. No one (in any statistically relevant number) is going to buy an Android phone over an iPhone solely due to the lack or presence of Google's GPS Nav app. So Google may be able to get a few more ads on a few more Android phones, while simultaneously giving up on a *load* of ads on tons of iPhones.
I know gamers and drafters really want giant screens at massive resolutions, but besides them who else really wants it?
People with good eyesight who use complicated applications or requirements.
The problem isn't eyesight. Most people would benefit from a higher DPI display. The problem is the two main OSs are designed for a relatively low DPI, and while they both have solutions in play for resolution independence, to varying degrees and in varying ways, the fact is that neither perform terribly well.
So, while some specific applications will really benefit, the rest of the system will not.
Then for god's sake, instead of dumbing down the entire iPhone/iPod/iPad platform to meet the needs of kiddies, put out a "kiddie version" for the little ones and treat adults like adults.
It's not dumbed down for children. It's simply not got porn apps, for children's sake.
But "adult" apps are the least of my problems with Apple's locked-down-tight approach to their consumer electronics devices. How about just letting us customers decide where we're going to get our apps?
Not gonna happen. And most people don't care. On the contrary, most people benefit greatly from this.
If you care, though, buy an Android. Problem solved.
[...] every time a 3 year old is found playing some porn app, the parent is going to be pissed at Apple.
Such parents should go f*ck themselves instead of blaming a piece of hardware for their failure at parenting.
Be that as it may[*], it's still a problem Apple will have to deal with. This is one of the biggest things the Open Source crowd doesn't seem to understand. The belief that if a problem is in some way irrational, subjective, or unnecessary, then it's not something they have to deal with, is far too prevalent.
[*] However, I disagree with your assessment. Parenting is hard enough as it is. Parents are not omniscient or omnipotent. They can use all the help they can get. Parents can buy their kids a Nintendo DS without having to worry that their kids might end up running porn games on it. They can also do the same with the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.
Telling parents to fuck themselves is not a solution to this problem. In fact, it simply makes it worse.
It's not the ads themselves that are the entirety of the annoyance, it's the forced 30 second break. Even if it was just 30 seconds of a no picture and silence, it would be a problem. Since the streams are free, it's an acceptable trade-off. Everyone understands that they have to pay the bills.
But if I'm expected to pay money for this, I absolutely do not want ads. A paid subscription costs me money and effort. If they are going to push me to go through so much for the exact same ad-laden content I can already get for free, I might as well either pirate the shows, or pay iTunes for ad-free content (which has the added bonus of providing an actual file that I don't have to stream which is very nice for plane trips, for example).
Not calling an iPhone a computer is insane. It runs OS X, has a general purpose user interface, runs general purpose third party apps.
The chief Slashdot complaint, which is the single App Store source for apps, is not enough to move the iPhone out of computer status. It takes something like TiVo, where Linux is simply there to run a single app, or AppleTV, where it's Mac OS X that runs a single app. These things are appliances with embedded-type OS's.
There could have easily been many other possible solutions other than making all Apple devices G-rated. Give people a choice, put simple parental controls at the time of purchase, sell a second version without "parental controls" for those of us who don't require an Apple chaperone.
Yes, there are other possible solutions, but just because you can imagine some solution doesn't make it suddenly materialize. It actually takes effort to put something into place. And the way Apple does these sorts of things is they try hard to get it as close to perfect on their first try as they can.
This is why things like cut and paste and multitasking and third party apps took so long.
The biggest problem with an adult section on the iTunes App Store is how to enforce it. How do you verify that someone is an adult? Yes, I realize that age verification is flawed everywhere, but likewise, you should also admit this is the case. It's at best a road block, but every time a 3 year old is found playing some porn app, the parent is going to be pissed at Apple.
The same problem exists for explicit music, R rated movies, and the Playboy app, but these things are already established issues parents have to deal with. But hard core porn apps are not.
Maybe I'm super-sheltered or something, but I don't think porn applications are all that common on regular computers (I know try exist, but they are extremely uncommon).
Further, there could have been a very simple solution to the Apple app-store lock-down. Let other companies offer iPhone-compatible app-stores, just don't support their apps. Let the developers support their own apps.
Another solution, but untenable for both the reason I mentioned above (less so, but still something that will reflect poorly on the iPhone to parents), and also the non-porn reasons for the single source app store.
These reasons include spyware, malware and crapware. It's also about simplicity of the entire iPhone experience. With just a single app store, you know that there's just one place to look for apps. And you only need one account, enter your credit card for one store and your apps are already in iTunes, syncing automatically.
This is part of what makes the iPhone such a compelling phone for most people. Yes, for a small minority, the restrictions are going to be too confining, and Apple knows this. They would rather make the most enjoyable phone to use, not the most hackable.
You may have the opposite priorities. Well, Apple's just not that into you.
I'm sorry, but the bit about Apple needing to keep strict control over applications and OS so they can be sure everybody gets first rate support and a "high-quality end-user experience" is simply bogus. Shit, why not sell unlocked iPhones and just not offer support? You're not going to get support unless you pay extra, anyway.
Nope. Apple's success is built on providing the most hassle-free systems out there. To offer an official and easy "no warranty" option negates that advantage.
Apple doesn't make the phone you want. Others do, though. Why are you arguing for Apple to ruin their phone, destroying the things that make their products so great, when there are already phones that meet your needs?
The meme here on Slashdot that Apple wants to control your mind, or control what you are allowed to do on your iPhone is absurd. I mean, over the top, paranoid delusional, health-care "death panel" absurd.
What exactly isn't true about apple not allowing you to run programs that do things they don't want you to do?
Because their blocking of programs isn't because they do things they don't want you to do.
They don't want you using google voice, so they don't let google put an app up (aka they don't let you run it).
Not true. They don't want you to replace the built-in phone functions with Google Voice. *NOT* because Apple doesn't want you to use Google Voice (you can, Google even has a nice web app for it that you can save as an icon right on your iPhone). It's that Apple doesn't want the user experience to be degraded by replacing the built-in phone app.
I don't agree with them in this case, but regardless, it's not a case of Apple wanting to control you.
They have a long history of trying to brick peoples devices who get through apples protection
Um, no. There was one update which bricked some unlocked iPhones due to a bug in the replacement baseband used by the unlockers. Apple later released an update which fixed those phones. Even if it were deliberate, one example doesn't make for a "long history".
If someone willingly opted out of the user experience, why is apple deliberately destroying that persons user experience to preserve the "user experience"?
This is not because they want to control you. It's because they want to control the quality iPhone user experience. If this is offensive to you, you can simply buy another phone. Very few people have a problem with this.
The problem for Apple here is that if it's a simple opt-out to use third-party apps, then it's a pretty meaningless distinction. People will simply opt-out, have problems, then blame Apple. Yes, putting an opt-out with a stern warning technically puts the blame on the user, but they'll still blame Apple, and it will tarnish the reputation of quality and usability that Apple strives for.
Apple's biggest strength is the quality of their products. So it makes sense that they'll preserve that, even at the expense of some amount of freedom. Google's biggest strength is their openness and ubiquity. So it makes sense that they'll trade away some quality to become more of a commodity.
Take your time responding, I realize you're very busy drinking koolaid these days.
No, I'm just not a moron who thinks Steve Jobs wants to control me.
Neither Apple, nor Steve Jobs, wants to control you, your thoughts, none of that (do you not realize how absurd it is I have to write something like that?). Their control over the iPhone is all centered around keeping the iPhone as high a quality experience as they can muster.
How is "you're not allowed to run programs that do things we don't want you to do" not being controlled "AT ALL"?
Because the bolded part isn't true. If it were, then you'd be correct.
Apple isn't refusing to carry porn because they don't want you to view porn. It's because they don't want to carry porn. This is so exceptionally simple.
They want to COMPLETELY control what you do - they deny you from doing anything they don't want you to do, that's COMPLETE control, the very opposite of your claim.
This is fundamentally absurd. They do not want to "COMPLETELY control" what I do. You're just being a paranoid delusional.
you can say that apple "frees" you from certain user interface detractions, but that's it.
Exactly. That one little thing frees most people, giving them the ability to actually make use of the thing. For those of us who are capable of using it, it frees us from a lot of hassle and annoyance.
Ubuntu, for example, frees people (not entirely successfully) from having to use the terminal to use Linux.
By entirely excluding this aspect of freedom from the discussion, you are damning people for choosing something that allows them to do many things they would otherwise not be able to do.
This is exactly the same type of freedom that a car (for example) provides. For most people, it means they can do more than they could have done otherwise.
Here's my larger issue. I can produce and sell software for the Mac OS without paying them a dime last time i checked. Similarly I can install what I like. Why is the iphone treated any differently in this regard than a mac or a macbook pro?
Because the iPhone isn't a Mac. Apple understands this. It's a shame far too many geeks can't seem to grasp such a simple concept.
Safari isn't open at all - it's RENDERING engine, WebKit, is. The reason behind that is because it's based on KHTML - the GPL'd rendering engine developed for KDE. Apple is contractually required to contribute source back.
I didn't say Safari was open source, I said it was open. Safari is the most open browser on the market in that it supports open standards better than any other browser.
The only consistent thing about them is that in ANY corner of the market where they can get away with it they lock their customers down to do things exactly the way they want them. I refuse to help give them any more control in other aspects of the market where they are likely to do the exact same thing.
Bullshit. Apple supports popular open standards every chance they get. Every single document of any type that I have in any Apple product is easily exported to a common format, with the exception of DRM'd content from the iTunes Store (which is not required for documents). This is in stark contrast to companies like Microsoft, where data is often locked into proprietary formats. Apple also doesn't go around inventing formats just to control them like MS does.
The only things they control are:
1. The App Store. 2. The computers Mac OS X can run on.
Everything else is very open. Openness only exceeded by Open Source OS's like Linux and BSD.
As long as they ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY impose that their store is the only way to get apps on the phone the two are one and the same and can not be seperated.
You are right that they can't be separated, but they are NOT one and the same.
They are absolutely controlling what you do while using their products.
No, they are not. They are only controlling the source of Apps.
Apple is being beyond unethical here; its down right assinine. Their entire platform would be crap if not for the users. The biggest claimed "feature" of the iphone is the app store and its billions of apps. Who created those apps? Third parties.
The App Store would not be as successful as it is if Apple didn't exert control over it.
Now that apple has these apps they are saying you know what, screw the third parties without which our platform wouldn't be popular
No, Apple has exerted this control since day one. In fact, Apple has gradually decreased control, not increased it. They aren't crapping all over those that made their platform successful. Quite the opposite.
its bull crap, and its why I wont renew my iphone and probably won't by an apple product again. How long until apple applies the app store to the mac as whole?
They may add the App Store as a way to distribute Mac apps, if that's what you mean (and many developers have been calling for just that). Just like Steam is to Windows (except being more than just games). But they will never, ever lock the Mac down like they have with the iPhone. The Mac isn't an iPhone. It has different strengths and different needs.
Seriously if its so important to the experience you would think they would have done it there first wouldn't you?
No, because I'm not a paranoid buffoon who thinks Apple has any desire to control my mind. Macs are not iPhones or iPads or iPods. It's kind of funny, when the iPod couldn't run apps at all, you didn't hear people crying that Apple wanted to limit the Mac to only playing music (there were *jokes* about replacing the keyboard with a click-wheel, though, so there is that I guess).
Apple's basic pattern is leech off of open source, polish it up real nice, then lock it down tighter and tighter once it catches on at all, and never contribute anything back.
You're an idiot. Apple contributes a lot to the open source community, including entire projects created internally at Apple that they have no obligation whatsoever to distribute the code to.
There is nothing extraordinarily innovative about the iPad or iPhone, it took what the Palm Pilot and Palm Smart Phone showed us in the early 90's and just went further with today's hardware capabilities. Heck we saw tablet pc's in the 2000's too.
The innovation is that they are something that people will actually buy and use. That's where design and usability and user experience come into play.
all i want to know is when does the anti-trust investigation start, they've gotten about as anti-competitive as you can get in the smartphone market if you believe half of what they say.
Do explain how they have violated anti-trust laws. They don't have a monopoly, they haven't engaged in trust activities with other companies, they haven't exploited a monopoly to push another product.
If they'll never use it, how does it cost them anything? Is Mac OS X worse because it offers the ability to explore the Unix layer which most users won't need?
I never said this applies to everything, did I? That Mac OS X is a Unix is one of its strengths. The user gains a lot, while losing only very little (every time they read of some terminal command to run to do this or that).
In terms of the App Store, if Apple opened up the iPhone to third party stores, people will have to hunt around for apps, have different accounts with different stores, will have to import non-App Store apps into iTunes, etc.
With just the sole App Store, this complexity is entirely avoided. The user loses little in terms of additional apps, but gains a lot in terms of ease of use.
Amazing that it's now an "extreme" position that I should be able to run software of my choice on my own hardware.
No, it's extreme to give up so much for so little, couching this in terms of some sort of absolute freedom.
You're looking at it wrong. You see, WHY is this about the App Store? Because Apple has enough leverage here that they can be the only source of applications here, which means that they can skim a bit of profit off of every app sold that works on the iPhone.
The App Store isn't about profit directly from the App Store, it's about quality control of the iPhone platform.
They don't have that leverage in the general web yet, but you can bet they'd like to
They've shown no such thing. On the contrary, they have the most open standards-supporting web browser on the planet.
If for example, there were sufficient iPhone users out there, it wouldn't be too much of a strech for Apple to move their platform to an opt-in method. You go to sites on a segregated Apple internet, and the sites there pay Apple for their presence there. Facebook coughs up a bit of money each month or they can't be accessed by iPhone users. Essentially, the same type of lock-in as with the app store.
Nonsense. They will never do this.
Let me explain something to you. Apple's schtick is to provide the best quality user experience out there. They can't do that if they control the web. The web requires them to be more open, not less. This is why Safari and WebKit are as open as they are.
The same is true for Mac OS X.
The iPhone, on the other hand, is a more limited device. It still has the fully open Safari browser, which gives them a significant advantage over all other phones. For apps to also be superior, they have to weed out the chaff. This prevents the market from being flooded by crap apps. You think things are bad now, they would be so much worse with a fully open market. The lock-down of the App Store keeps the iPhone a superior platform in terms of user experience.
The reason there is simple: profit motive.
Partially, yes. Apple wants to make the best products they can and provide the most value and the best user experience. This leads to profit (and is the key to their current success). But with things like the App Store, they don't go for profit directly. They go for quality, trusting (and rightfully so) that profit will follow.
Apple want to control the platform, including how it is used. If it was just a case of Apple don't want to sell you porn, then where is the alternative app-store?
Please re-read my post, I cover this.
"The only reason this is a problem is that Apple also only allows their own store. This IS NOT because they don't want you to have porn apps at all, but because they want to control the quality of the iPhone experience. This has worked well for them, helping keep the iPhone quality far above all the competition."
The lack of a third party app store isn't because the care one whit what you do with your iPhone. What they care about is the overall iPhone experience, and they believe that third party stores would degrade that experience. I agree with them, and the success of the iPhone tends to back this up.
You need to understand that just because you like their product, doesn't mean it should not be criticised. On the contrary, you (as presumably an Apple user) should be more critical of them then others - it is in your own interest after all.
I never said Apple shouldn't be criticized. It's just that the current crop of criticism is nerd-nonsense.
The fact that I agree (mostly) with how they are handling things regarding the App Store, not because Apple is beyond reproach.
Specifically, I find the notion that Apple wants to control what people and think and do with their own devices to be completely moronic. On the other hand, if people were simply complaining about the arbitrariness of the App Store, or that Apple needs an opt-in, parentally controlled, "Adult" store, or whatever, I'd be more in agreement. But this whole "Jobs wants to control you!" line is pure rubbish.
Apple sells the same kind of freedom as Microsoft.
Actually, Apple sells greater freedom than Microsoft. Apple offers the freedom for non-technical people to participate in modern culture. There were MP3 players before the iPod, but the iPod allowed people to carry their whole music collection with them with minimal hassle. Mac OS X and the computers they run on are designed to be easier to use and more functional with regards to tasks people care about. iPhone is more liberating for most people than any phone before. And the iPad allows people to do more than they ever would with a netbook.
Slashdot geeks tend to look at either tech specs or some sort of nebulous "freedom" as things that are important, and obviously to some extent they are, but those geeks take things too far. What use is the freedom to download crappy porn apps (or even well-designed porn apps), if the rest of the user experience is inferior? What's the point of having the freedom to download from other stores if that freedom brings about a lower overall quality of the phone itself?
Sure, if porn is specifically important to you, or access to multiple stores is specifically important to you, or whatever, and in fact more important than the loss of quality inherent with the application of those "freedoms", then by all means, you are 100% free to buy an Android phone.
But for most people, that additional bit of freedom, which they'll never use costs them far more than what they'll lose out on.
It's like bitching about not being able to see porn at your local Regal Cinemas, or not being free to bring in your own food. Sure, you do lose some "freedom" (sort of, you can still watch porn and eat non-Regal snacks once you exit the theater), but you also gain something that exceeds the freedoms lost.
Understand this and you'll understand a large part of Apple's success. Fail to understand this and you'll be stuck at a loss to comprehend why those around you seem so willing to "sign away" their freedom, when it's you who has the absurd and extreme point of view.
Apple, on the other hand, wants to completely control what you think and do when using their products.
This is absurd. The only thing they are controlling is the apps on their store. They are not trying to control what you think, nor what you do while using their products. AT ALL.
Actually... it's more like saying that the person who built your house (that YOU own) says that he doesn't want OJ Simpson in the house that YOU own. And actively stops you from having him as a guest.
No, it would be like the person who built your house not offering to call OJ for you to come over. You are still free to invite OJ over yourself.
The only thing Apple is doing is not distributing porn themselves. You are free to download all the porn you want yourself, outside of Apple's store.
The only reason this is a problem is that Apple also only allows their own store. This IS NOT because they don't want you to have porn apps at all, but because they want to control the quality of the iPhone experience. This has worked well for them, helping keep the iPhone quality far above all the competition.
Your analogy is ludicrous. How would you explain away not having Flash functionality?
One analogy does not cover all cases. It's absurd to expect them to. I covered the reason above (no analogy required). Flash would degrade the iPhone experience, so Apple has kept it off of their phone. If you disagree with Apple's assessment of Flash, you are free to buy some other smart phone (which, ironically, do not actually have the Flash Player either).
I'm sure the thought of an Apple provided internet a la AOL of old has crossed their minds. Wouldn't be awesome if all the pages you were given access to had to be reviewed and approved by Apple!
Sound ridiculous, but I see it as a very real possibility in a few years.
This is absolutely absurd. Apple has zero interest in blocking what you can view in Safari (or Firefox or whatever you browse with). This is solely about the apps in the App Store. Nothing more.
Apple doesn't want you to stop watching porn, they just don't want to distribute it. Apple restricts apps more than they should, but their goal has nothing to do with controlling the user, but in controlling the quality of the iPhone experience itself.
Every quarter for the past year Android has been doubling its marketshare.
Hell, in no time there will be trillions of Android phones in the US alone!
With Apple's cellphone marketshare flat lining and starting to decline
iPhone sales are up, not down. Android is Apple's biggest competitor looking forward, but iPhone is still king in terms of usage, revenue, profit, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Google created "Android", which is a mobile OS.
No, it was created by Android, Inc., which Google later bought. If you're going to be pedantic about it...
Android is not like iPhone OS in very many ways. It's a competitor sure, but tit for tat is petty childish stuff. Wanting to make their own system because they think they can do better is hardly a sin.
No, they aren't doing it because they think they can do better. They're doing it because they want to get their ads on the increasingly lucrative smartphone market.
Saying they deserve punishment for it is, frankly, wrong. Apple approved, then unapproved Google's app because they wanted to make their own (I forget which app it was, exactly, I recall it being a big deal though).
First off, Apple didn't approve, then unapprove, Google Voice. And no, Apple did not make their own Google Voice app (or Apple Voice app, or anything like that). They didn't approve it because it was designed to replace the core phone functionality of the iPhone, which is very consistent with Apple's previous actions.
But all that aside, it's extremely ironic that you say Apple shouldn't retaliate against Google for Android, but that Google should retaliate against Apple for not approving Google Voice.
Rather than compete in their own marketplace, they decided to stifle the competition so their app would be the only option. That is just plain evil.
Name one such app that Apple has in the App Store that they refuse competing apps for. The only thing they do that is even similar to what you are saying is they don't approve apps that replace certain fundamental functions of the iPhone. This isn't due to competition, but due to wanting to ensure a specific, consistent user experience that has a certain level (to Apple, at least) of quality. You may not agree with their decision to do things like this, but it's worked well for them, and it's absolutely absurd to call it "evil".
So it sounds like Google has simply said "Fine, if you don't want to work with us, why should we work with you?" What it means is now pretty much everything but the iPhone will have the best free turn-by-turn navigation system on the planet. Way to go Apple!
Yawn. If the single biggest knock against Apple is that they don't have Google's GPS Nav app, Apple is still coming out ahead in the game.
Even with all that, Google didn't say they *won't* release their app for the iPhone, and from a business standpoint, it would be counterproductive for them to specifically *not* create one. The reason is that they will be deliberately missing out on revenue. No one (in any statistically relevant number) is going to buy an Android phone over an iPhone solely due to the lack or presence of Google's GPS Nav app. So Google may be able to get a few more ads on a few more Android phones, while simultaneously giving up on a *load* of ads on tons of iPhones.
People with good eyesight who use complicated applications or requirements.
The problem isn't eyesight. Most people would benefit from a higher DPI display. The problem is the two main OSs are designed for a relatively low DPI, and while they both have solutions in play for resolution independence, to varying degrees and in varying ways, the fact is that neither perform terribly well.
So, while some specific applications will really benefit, the rest of the system will not.
I guess you're incapable of finding the DPI settings in your OS.
DPI settings out of the norm tend to cause all sorts of problems with various program. It's not a coherent solution.
You probably also wish we were still using dot matrix printers with a DPI less than 100. All those extra dots in modern printing must hurt your eyes.
Yes, I'm certain that that's exactly what he wants. You are exceptionally astute.
Then for god's sake, instead of dumbing down the entire iPhone/iPod/iPad platform to meet the needs of kiddies, put out a "kiddie version" for the little ones and treat adults like adults.
It's not dumbed down for children. It's simply not got porn apps, for children's sake.
But "adult" apps are the least of my problems with Apple's locked-down-tight approach to their consumer electronics devices. How about just letting us customers decide where we're going to get our apps?
Not gonna happen. And most people don't care. On the contrary, most people benefit greatly from this.
If you care, though, buy an Android. Problem solved.
[...] every time a 3 year old is found playing some porn app, the parent is going to be pissed at Apple.
Such parents should go f*ck themselves instead of blaming a piece of hardware for their failure at parenting.
Be that as it may[*], it's still a problem Apple will have to deal with. This is one of the biggest things the Open Source crowd doesn't seem to understand. The belief that if a problem is in some way irrational, subjective, or unnecessary, then it's not something they have to deal with, is far too prevalent.
[*] However, I disagree with your assessment. Parenting is hard enough as it is. Parents are not omniscient or omnipotent. They can use all the help they can get. Parents can buy their kids a Nintendo DS without having to worry that their kids might end up running porn games on it. They can also do the same with the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.
Telling parents to fuck themselves is not a solution to this problem. In fact, it simply makes it worse.
It's not the ads themselves that are the entirety of the annoyance, it's the forced 30 second break. Even if it was just 30 seconds of a no picture and silence, it would be a problem. Since the streams are free, it's an acceptable trade-off. Everyone understands that they have to pay the bills.
But if I'm expected to pay money for this, I absolutely do not want ads. A paid subscription costs me money and effort. If they are going to push me to go through so much for the exact same ad-laden content I can already get for free, I might as well either pirate the shows, or pay iTunes for ad-free content (which has the added bonus of providing an actual file that I don't have to stream which is very nice for plane trips, for example).
Not calling an iPhone a computer is insane. It runs OS X, has a general purpose user interface, runs general purpose third party apps.
The chief Slashdot complaint, which is the single App Store source for apps, is not enough to move the iPhone out of computer status. It takes something like TiVo, where Linux is simply there to run a single app, or AppleTV, where it's Mac OS X that runs a single app. These things are appliances with embedded-type OS's.
Shh, geeks only care about bugs or crappy performance if it's not about their favorite system.
Evidence? Keep an eye on this post's mod score.
There could have easily been many other possible solutions other than making all Apple devices G-rated. Give people a choice, put simple parental controls at the time of purchase, sell a second version without "parental controls" for those of us who don't require an Apple chaperone.
Yes, there are other possible solutions, but just because you can imagine some solution doesn't make it suddenly materialize. It actually takes effort to put something into place. And the way Apple does these sorts of things is they try hard to get it as close to perfect on their first try as they can.
This is why things like cut and paste and multitasking and third party apps took so long.
The biggest problem with an adult section on the iTunes App Store is how to enforce it. How do you verify that someone is an adult? Yes, I realize that age verification is flawed everywhere, but likewise, you should also admit this is the case. It's at best a road block, but every time a 3 year old is found playing some porn app, the parent is going to be pissed at Apple.
The same problem exists for explicit music, R rated movies, and the Playboy app, but these things are already established issues parents have to deal with. But hard core porn apps are not.
Maybe I'm super-sheltered or something, but I don't think porn applications are all that common on regular computers (I know try exist, but they are extremely uncommon).
Further, there could have been a very simple solution to the Apple app-store lock-down. Let other companies offer iPhone-compatible app-stores, just don't support their apps. Let the developers support their own apps.
Another solution, but untenable for both the reason I mentioned above (less so, but still something that will reflect poorly on the iPhone to parents), and also the non-porn reasons for the single source app store.
These reasons include spyware, malware and crapware. It's also about simplicity of the entire iPhone experience. With just a single app store, you know that there's just one place to look for apps. And you only need one account, enter your credit card for one store and your apps are already in iTunes, syncing automatically.
This is part of what makes the iPhone such a compelling phone for most people. Yes, for a small minority, the restrictions are going to be too confining, and Apple knows this. They would rather make the most enjoyable phone to use, not the most hackable.
You may have the opposite priorities. Well, Apple's just not that into you.
I'm sorry, but the bit about Apple needing to keep strict control over applications and OS so they can be sure everybody gets first rate support and a "high-quality end-user experience" is simply bogus. Shit, why not sell unlocked iPhones and just not offer support? You're not going to get support unless you pay extra, anyway.
Nope. Apple's success is built on providing the most hassle-free systems out there. To offer an official and easy "no warranty" option negates that advantage.
Apple doesn't make the phone you want. Others do, though. Why are you arguing for Apple to ruin their phone, destroying the things that make their products so great, when there are already phones that meet your needs?
The meme here on Slashdot that Apple wants to control your mind, or control what you are allowed to do on your iPhone is absurd. I mean, over the top, paranoid delusional, health-care "death panel" absurd.
Ironically, Mac OS X does include Flash Player.
What exactly isn't true about apple not allowing you to run programs that do things they don't want you to do?
Because their blocking of programs isn't because they do things they don't want you to do.
They don't want you using google voice, so they don't let google put an app up (aka they don't let you run it).
Not true. They don't want you to replace the built-in phone functions with Google Voice. *NOT* because Apple doesn't want you to use Google Voice (you can, Google even has a nice web app for it that you can save as an icon right on your iPhone). It's that Apple doesn't want the user experience to be degraded by replacing the built-in phone app.
I don't agree with them in this case, but regardless, it's not a case of Apple wanting to control you.
They have a long history of trying to brick peoples devices who get through apples protection
Um, no. There was one update which bricked some unlocked iPhones due to a bug in the replacement baseband used by the unlockers. Apple later released an update which fixed those phones. Even if it were deliberate, one example doesn't make for a "long history".
If someone willingly opted out of the user experience, why is apple deliberately destroying that persons user experience to preserve the "user experience"?
This is not because they want to control you. It's because they want to control the quality iPhone user experience. If this is offensive to you, you can simply buy another phone. Very few people have a problem with this.
The problem for Apple here is that if it's a simple opt-out to use third-party apps, then it's a pretty meaningless distinction. People will simply opt-out, have problems, then blame Apple. Yes, putting an opt-out with a stern warning technically puts the blame on the user, but they'll still blame Apple, and it will tarnish the reputation of quality and usability that Apple strives for.
Apple's biggest strength is the quality of their products. So it makes sense that they'll preserve that, even at the expense of some amount of freedom. Google's biggest strength is their openness and ubiquity. So it makes sense that they'll trade away some quality to become more of a commodity.
Take your time responding, I realize you're very busy drinking koolaid these days.
No, I'm just not a moron who thinks Steve Jobs wants to control me.
Neither Apple, nor Steve Jobs, wants to control you, your thoughts, none of that (do you not realize how absurd it is I have to write something like that?). Their control over the iPhone is all centered around keeping the iPhone as high a quality experience as they can muster.
How is "you're not allowed to run programs that do things we don't want you to do" not being controlled "AT ALL"?
Because the bolded part isn't true. If it were, then you'd be correct.
Apple isn't refusing to carry porn because they don't want you to view porn. It's because they don't want to carry porn. This is so exceptionally simple.
They want to COMPLETELY control what you do - they deny you from doing anything they don't want you to do, that's COMPLETE control, the very opposite of your claim.
This is fundamentally absurd. They do not want to "COMPLETELY control" what I do. You're just being a paranoid delusional.
you can say that apple "frees" you from certain user interface detractions, but that's it.
Exactly. That one little thing frees most people, giving them the ability to actually make use of the thing. For those of us who are capable of using it, it frees us from a lot of hassle and annoyance.
Ubuntu, for example, frees people (not entirely successfully) from having to use the terminal to use Linux.
By entirely excluding this aspect of freedom from the discussion, you are damning people for choosing something that allows them to do many things they would otherwise not be able to do.
This is exactly the same type of freedom that a car (for example) provides. For most people, it means they can do more than they could have done otherwise.
Here's my larger issue. I can produce and sell software for the Mac OS without paying them a dime last time i checked. Similarly I can install what I like. Why is the iphone treated any differently in this regard than a mac or a macbook pro?
Because the iPhone isn't a Mac. Apple understands this. It's a shame far too many geeks can't seem to grasp such a simple concept.
Safari isn't open at all - it's RENDERING engine, WebKit, is. The reason behind that is because it's based on KHTML - the GPL'd rendering engine developed for KDE. Apple is contractually required to contribute source back.
I didn't say Safari was open source, I said it was open. Safari is the most open browser on the market in that it supports open standards better than any other browser.
The only consistent thing about them is that in ANY corner of the market where they can get away with it they lock their customers down to do things exactly the way they want them. I refuse to help give them any more control in other aspects of the market where they are likely to do the exact same thing.
Bullshit. Apple supports popular open standards every chance they get. Every single document of any type that I have in any Apple product is easily exported to a common format, with the exception of DRM'd content from the iTunes Store (which is not required for documents). This is in stark contrast to companies like Microsoft, where data is often locked into proprietary formats. Apple also doesn't go around inventing formats just to control them like MS does.
The only things they control are:
1. The App Store.
2. The computers Mac OS X can run on.
Everything else is very open. Openness only exceeded by Open Source OS's like Linux and BSD.
As long as they ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY impose that their store is the only way to get apps on the phone the two are one and the same and can not be seperated.
You are right that they can't be separated, but they are NOT one and the same.
They are absolutely controlling what you do while using their products.
No, they are not. They are only controlling the source of Apps.
Apple is being beyond unethical here; its down right assinine. Their entire platform would be crap if not for the users. The biggest claimed "feature" of the iphone is the app store and its billions of apps. Who created those apps? Third parties.
The App Store would not be as successful as it is if Apple didn't exert control over it.
Now that apple has these apps they are saying you know what, screw the third parties without which our platform wouldn't be popular
No, Apple has exerted this control since day one. In fact, Apple has gradually decreased control, not increased it. They aren't crapping all over those that made their platform successful. Quite the opposite.
its bull crap, and its why I wont renew my iphone and probably won't by an apple product again. How long until apple applies the app store to the mac as whole?
They may add the App Store as a way to distribute Mac apps, if that's what you mean (and many developers have been calling for just that). Just like Steam is to Windows (except being more than just games). But they will never, ever lock the Mac down like they have with the iPhone. The Mac isn't an iPhone. It has different strengths and different needs.
Seriously if its so important to the experience you would think they would have done it there first wouldn't you?
No, because I'm not a paranoid buffoon who thinks Apple has any desire to control my mind. Macs are not iPhones or iPads or iPods. It's kind of funny, when the iPod couldn't run apps at all, you didn't hear people crying that Apple wanted to limit the Mac to only playing music (there were *jokes* about replacing the keyboard with a click-wheel, though, so there is that I guess).
Apple's basic pattern is leech off of open source, polish it up real nice, then lock it down tighter and tighter once it catches on at all, and never contribute anything back.
You're an idiot. Apple contributes a lot to the open source community, including entire projects created internally at Apple that they have no obligation whatsoever to distribute the code to.
There is nothing extraordinarily innovative about the iPad or iPhone, it took what the Palm Pilot and Palm Smart Phone showed us in the early 90's and just went further with today's hardware capabilities. Heck we saw tablet pc's in the 2000's too.
The innovation is that they are something that people will actually buy and use. That's where design and usability and user experience come into play.
all i want to know is when does the anti-trust investigation start, they've gotten about as anti-competitive as you can get in the smartphone market if you believe half of what they say.
Do explain how they have violated anti-trust laws. They don't have a monopoly, they haven't engaged in trust activities with other companies, they haven't exploited a monopoly to push another product.
If they'll never use it, how does it cost them anything? Is Mac OS X worse because it offers the ability to explore the Unix layer which most users won't need?
I never said this applies to everything, did I? That Mac OS X is a Unix is one of its strengths. The user gains a lot, while losing only very little (every time they read of some terminal command to run to do this or that).
In terms of the App Store, if Apple opened up the iPhone to third party stores, people will have to hunt around for apps, have different accounts with different stores, will have to import non-App Store apps into iTunes, etc.
With just the sole App Store, this complexity is entirely avoided. The user loses little in terms of additional apps, but gains a lot in terms of ease of use.
Amazing that it's now an "extreme" position that I should be able to run software of my choice on my own hardware.
No, it's extreme to give up so much for so little, couching this in terms of some sort of absolute freedom.
You're looking at it wrong. You see, WHY is this about the App Store? Because Apple has enough leverage here that they can be the only source of applications here, which means that they can skim a bit of profit off of every app sold that works on the iPhone.
The App Store isn't about profit directly from the App Store, it's about quality control of the iPhone platform.
They don't have that leverage in the general web yet, but you can bet they'd like to
They've shown no such thing. On the contrary, they have the most open standards-supporting web browser on the planet.
If for example, there were sufficient iPhone users out there, it wouldn't be too much of a strech for Apple to move their platform to an opt-in method. You go to sites on a segregated Apple internet, and the sites there pay Apple for their presence there. Facebook coughs up a bit of money each month or they can't be accessed by iPhone users. Essentially, the same type of lock-in as with the app store.
Nonsense. They will never do this.
Let me explain something to you. Apple's schtick is to provide the best quality user experience out there. They can't do that if they control the web. The web requires them to be more open, not less. This is why Safari and WebKit are as open as they are.
The same is true for Mac OS X.
The iPhone, on the other hand, is a more limited device. It still has the fully open Safari browser, which gives them a significant advantage over all other phones. For apps to also be superior, they have to weed out the chaff. This prevents the market from being flooded by crap apps. You think things are bad now, they would be so much worse with a fully open market. The lock-down of the App Store keeps the iPhone a superior platform in terms of user experience.
The reason there is simple: profit motive.
Partially, yes. Apple wants to make the best products they can and provide the most value and the best user experience. This leads to profit (and is the key to their current success). But with things like the App Store, they don't go for profit directly. They go for quality, trusting (and rightfully so) that profit will follow.
Apple want to control the platform, including how it is used. If it was just a case of Apple don't want to sell you porn, then where is the alternative app-store?
Please re-read my post, I cover this.
"The only reason this is a problem is that Apple also only allows their own store. This IS NOT because they don't want you to have porn apps at all, but because they want to control the quality of the iPhone experience. This has worked well for them, helping keep the iPhone quality far above all the competition."
The lack of a third party app store isn't because the care one whit what you do with your iPhone. What they care about is the overall iPhone experience, and they believe that third party stores would degrade that experience. I agree with them, and the success of the iPhone tends to back this up.
You need to understand that just because you like their product, doesn't mean it should not be criticised. On the contrary, you (as presumably an Apple user) should be more critical of them then others - it is in your own interest after all.
I never said Apple shouldn't be criticized. It's just that the current crop of criticism is nerd-nonsense.
The fact that I agree (mostly) with how they are handling things regarding the App Store, not because Apple is beyond reproach.
Specifically, I find the notion that Apple wants to control what people and think and do with their own devices to be completely moronic. On the other hand, if people were simply complaining about the arbitrariness of the App Store, or that Apple needs an opt-in, parentally controlled, "Adult" store, or whatever, I'd be more in agreement. But this whole "Jobs wants to control you!" line is pure rubbish.
As someone's sig here reads, "nerd rage is the funniest rage".
Apple sells the same kind of freedom as Microsoft.
Actually, Apple sells greater freedom than Microsoft. Apple offers the freedom for non-technical people to participate in modern culture. There were MP3 players before the iPod, but the iPod allowed people to carry their whole music collection with them with minimal hassle. Mac OS X and the computers they run on are designed to be easier to use and more functional with regards to tasks people care about. iPhone is more liberating for most people than any phone before. And the iPad allows people to do more than they ever would with a netbook.
Slashdot geeks tend to look at either tech specs or some sort of nebulous "freedom" as things that are important, and obviously to some extent they are, but those geeks take things too far. What use is the freedom to download crappy porn apps (or even well-designed porn apps), if the rest of the user experience is inferior? What's the point of having the freedom to download from other stores if that freedom brings about a lower overall quality of the phone itself?
Sure, if porn is specifically important to you, or access to multiple stores is specifically important to you, or whatever, and in fact more important than the loss of quality inherent with the application of those "freedoms", then by all means, you are 100% free to buy an Android phone.
But for most people, that additional bit of freedom, which they'll never use costs them far more than what they'll lose out on.
It's like bitching about not being able to see porn at your local Regal Cinemas, or not being free to bring in your own food. Sure, you do lose some "freedom" (sort of, you can still watch porn and eat non-Regal snacks once you exit the theater), but you also gain something that exceeds the freedoms lost.
Understand this and you'll understand a large part of Apple's success. Fail to understand this and you'll be stuck at a loss to comprehend why those around you seem so willing to "sign away" their freedom, when it's you who has the absurd and extreme point of view.
Apple, on the other hand, wants to completely control what you think and do when using their products.
This is absurd. The only thing they are controlling is the apps on their store. They are not trying to control what you think, nor what you do while using their products. AT ALL.
Actually... it's more like saying that the person who built your house (that YOU own) says that he doesn't want OJ Simpson in the house that YOU own. And actively stops you from having him as a guest.
No, it would be like the person who built your house not offering to call OJ for you to come over. You are still free to invite OJ over yourself.
The only thing Apple is doing is not distributing porn themselves. You are free to download all the porn you want yourself, outside of Apple's store.
The only reason this is a problem is that Apple also only allows their own store. This IS NOT because they don't want you to have porn apps at all, but because they want to control the quality of the iPhone experience. This has worked well for them, helping keep the iPhone quality far above all the competition.
Your analogy is ludicrous. How would you explain away not having Flash functionality?
One analogy does not cover all cases. It's absurd to expect them to. I covered the reason above (no analogy required). Flash would degrade the iPhone experience, so Apple has kept it off of their phone. If you disagree with Apple's assessment of Flash, you are free to buy some other smart phone (which, ironically, do not actually have the Flash Player either).
They didn't reject that app because they don't want kids to program, they rejected it because they don't want code interpreters.
I'm sure the thought of an Apple provided internet a la AOL of old has crossed their minds. Wouldn't be awesome if all the pages you were given access to had to be reviewed and approved by Apple!
Sound ridiculous, but I see it as a very real possibility in a few years.
This is absolutely absurd. Apple has zero interest in blocking what you can view in Safari (or Firefox or whatever you browse with). This is solely about the apps in the App Store. Nothing more.
Apple doesn't want you to stop watching porn, they just don't want to distribute it. Apple restricts apps more than they should, but their goal has nothing to do with controlling the user, but in controlling the quality of the iPhone experience itself.
Every quarter for the past year Android has been doubling its marketshare.
Hell, in no time there will be trillions of Android phones in the US alone!
With Apple's cellphone marketshare flat lining and starting to decline
iPhone sales are up, not down. Android is Apple's biggest competitor looking forward, but iPhone is still king in terms of usage, revenue, profit, etc.