The very things you wrote fit what SuperKendall wrote, not contradict it!
Yeah, it's not like Apple ever said you didn't need 3G on your phone (since it would kill battery life)
They *didn't* say you don't need it. They said it killed battery life. And it *DID*. Newer chips use less power. At the time, 3G phones tended to have awful battery life when 3G was enabled. Now they don't. Now the same is true of 4G phones. And then it won't be. Also, 3G wasn't widely deployed, just as 4G isn't yet either. But, just like 3G, it will be.
or how you don't need multitasking (since it would kill battery life)
And it does. Which is why Apple implemented a multitasking system which works well without leading to battery problems.
And they never said, "you don't need multitasking".
or you don't need a front facing camera on your iPad (for no apparent reason)
And they never said you don't need a front facing camera.
This is exactly what SuperKendall was saying. Apple doesn't go around saying, "you don't need this". They just don't implement something until they can do it well. 3G waited for better chips. Multitasking waited for a better task model. Front facing camera waited for FaceTime and simply just when the hardware was added.
Huh? Jobs specifically said "people do not read" as a dismissal of ebook about a year before Apple launched a ebook section of their app store.
Huh? That's not what the person you replied to was saying. He wrote: 'Apple never says you "don't need something"', and he was replying to someone saying, "Apple's approach seems to be to tell you that you don't need that feature and then release it later"
Jobs' quote about books is not him saying you "don't need it". Here's his quotes:
“It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore." and “Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore.”
This was about Kindle, claiming it wouldn't succeed. This was not him saying that the iPad shouldn't be used for books. In fact, it was used for books from day one.
Nevermind the fact that companies like Apple patent things they never implement.
They patent things because they may want to implement them.
That's *a* reason. Another reason is that someone else might want to implement them. Another reason is that a camera maker, like Kodak, might want to sue Apple, and such a patent would give them leverage.
Oh, btw. A camera maker (Kodak) is suing Apple right now, and camera related patents would have helped Apple greatly.
Another reason is that it's an invention, and it's always nice to have a patent on an invention, even if you see no point in it right now. Another reason is employees get incentivized to take out patents.
That they may never do so doesn't mean it was OK to file the patent in the first place.
You've yet to show how it's not OK to patent an invention like this. Apple customers are voluntary. This patent will not force anyone to buy a product which uses this patent.
Right now that's true, because no product uses this patent. And in an unlikely, but possible future, it's true because no one has to buy an iPhone.
If I drew up specific and actionable plans to bomb your house, you would object without me acting on it.
Yes, if you intended to kill me, I'd do much more than object to it. But just talking about it (like you just did) is not the same as having any intention whatsoever of actually doing it.
I know the difference between what exists and what does not exist.
Sorry, being able to discern between reality and fantasy does not make one an apologist.
Patents are not fantasy. Corporations don't engage in fantasy as a general business principle.
Fantasy is thinking a patent is the thing it describes. Apple has a patent, that doesn't mean they will implement it. They have *loads* of patents they haven't implemented. That's reality.
It's definitely possible, but makes little sense, for Apple to implement this patent. Acting like they are going to is not rational.
If it makes little sense for them to implement the patent, then it makes little sense to patent it. Any supposed "strategic value" of a patent you never intend to use is frivolous. Don't patent crap that is objectionable, and you don't get objections. If you do, it's completely fair to voice those objections.
Nevermind the fact that companies like Apple patent things they never implement.
Having a patent isn't the same as implementing a patent. No one's saying you can't object to the content of the patent, but I am most definitely saying you can't criticize something that isn't implemented, or publicly planned to be implemented, as though it were. To do so is to engage in fantasy.
It's just an invention that they are making a legal claim of ownership of.
They do this so that they may at some point make use of it. They made decide not to. The fact that they see potential in it is the problem.
Yet another apologist.
Sorry, being able to discern between reality and fantasy does not make one an apologist.
Reality is Apple has countless patents that they never make use of. Reality is some companies reward or otherwise encourage employees to submit patents. Reality is simply having a patent, even one a company never intends to use, can be of strategic value. Reality is, this is an invention, worthy of patenting.
And reality is, iPhones don't do this now.
It's definitely possible, but makes little sense, for Apple to implement this patent. Acting like they are going to is not rational.
In the end, everyone will lose. Facebook will try to get as much data about iPhone users as possible; Apple will try to prevent Facebook from getting this data, and lock down iOS more and more. At the end of the day, iOS users will wind up with both less privacy and less freedom than ever before.
And before you know it, we are all slaves in prison camps, forced to build weapons and fight for whichever side has captured us, be it Apple or Facebook!!!
What sort of lockdown will Apple have to do here? If Facebook starts stealing user data, Apple will just block the app. If Facebook decides to make a bunch of web apps, then Apple will... do nothing. Web apps are one of the reasons Apple made mobile Safari in the first place. If Facebook finds a way to violate user privacy through mobile Safari, Apple will block the hole. How you would think this is a bad thing is difficult to fathom.
Every police car will have one installed by the end of the year.
Why? To block imaginary iPhones that have this feature? Because no existing iPhone does, and there's no reason to expect a future iPhone to have this either.
Apple, as a very wealthy corporation, has plenty of freedom. I think you meant to say Apple users have none.
You may be surprised to hear this, but I am writing this of my on volition on an Apple product. Amazing, right?!
Apple customers choose to buy Apple products voluntarily and knowingly. Apple can't do this if their products offend the user's sense of self-determination.
Except that last one was general to all cameras, this one is specific to iphones.
What? You don't patent something that only specifically applies to your own products by name. If you are the only one who can make an iPhone, patenting something that only affects those that are interested in making an iPhone is redundant.
Apple is not engaged in "conspiracy to..." implement this patent. It's just an invention that they are making a legal claim of ownership of. Unless this ever actually makes it into an iPhone, you're getting worked up over some imaginary harm.
But whether this way of looking at it makes sense or not (I think it's disgusting), you know that the device is hostile to your desires (if not hostile to your ultimate interests of getting along with others).
Apple's customers are their users. That's where they get their money from. This is in contrast to, say, Google, whose customers are the advertisers, and their users are the product.
The flaw in your argument is this: the FSF nerd is not Apple's target demographic. *YOU* want something that almost no one else wants. Apple wants to sell things that are more desirable to more people. In fact, it's *YOUR* desires that are hostile to the wants and interests of the average person. If you had your way, people would be struggling with systems they can't understand, or simply foregoing technology altogether. If you want to call something disgusting, I submit something like that as Exhibit A.
You see, people just aren't all that interested in open source. They'd rather have something that works well than have access to the source code. Complete control over their hardware and software is something they can never have no matter what the license, so of course they will give up a theoretical benefit in exchange for a very real one.
The outrage over this story is especially twisted. It's a *patent*, not an actual iPhone feature. There's no reason to expect Apple to implement this.
Your point of view about having it be more of a proper choice is valid, and fairly common around here, but it's something that very few of Apple's customers are really interested in.
The problem with ending the cat-and-mouse game is that jailbreaking deliberately breaks iOS's security model. Regardless of whether Apple is trying to address jailbreaking specifically, simply applying security fixes will have the effect of preventing jailbreaking.
The problem with making it a choice (even if with loads of scary warnings and the like) is that all it will take is *one* app of some sort coming out in this manner and users will completely ignore the warnings. This doesn't even have to be any sort of "banned" app, it can simply be some dev who doesn't want to go through the App Store.
It's legitimate to hold that, sure, the user and developer should be able to make those decisions for themselves. But it's a pandora's box. Once you allow it, you have the likely outcome of ending up with worst of both worlds. As things stand right now, users don't really give up all that much in terms of what they are interested in, and Apple gets to provide a trustworthy and reliable experience.
The two are intricately related. And, regardless of how you look at it, Apple's model has been shown time and again to be safer for the end user than Google's.
Well, the implication is rather strong, but even ignoring the legal side of it, the sense of guilt side still remains. It's quite reasonable that having the outward appearance of piracy washed away will still make some people feel better about it. Especially since it involves a payment, which can also give a sense of recompense for past transgressions.
Right, because up to now, people have *never* put pirated music into iTunes or synced it onto their iPods!
I see you can't fathom the difference between adding files to iTunes and letting Apple scan your computer.
Um, by definition, using iTunes means letting Apple scan your music. That's fundamental to how it works. Apple presently has a system which uploads song information, completely voluntarily and opt-in as opposed to opt-out, as part of the Genius feature. The very same idiotic nonsense about "Apple will turn you in for piracy" surfaced when that feature was announced, yet somehow not a single person has been turned in to the RIAA.
Let's just agree to call it totally unvetted functionality that apple didn't have a clue about?
And let's also be honest about the fact that it wasn't malware, quite unlike what is being discussed here on the Android Market.
Trojans are a type of malware. The flashlight tethering app wasn't malware. If you want to call it a trojan because it had hidden, but non-malicious functionality, feel free. But don't act like that's what people are talking about when they say 'malware' or 'trojan'.
Depends. If I pick up a jar labeled "biohazard" and open it without finding out what the stuff inside might do to me, or finding out how to properly handle jars with such labels, then yes, yes I am.
Sorry, I must have missed the part of this story where malware is marked as "Warning: Malware".
There's no fallacy here. People complain when their phone gets jacked. People use their phone. People don't bother learning the basics about using their phone so it doesn't get jacked. That's dumb.
Yeah, it's *really* dumb of people to not know how to tell what's a trojan or not! I mean, it's really simple, you just sorta "know" when something looks suspicious, and with a little digging, bam! you now know if it's a trojan or not. I mean, *anyone* can do this, right? All you have to do is keep up on current malware trends, and have used enough software to tell the difference of what seems legit or not, including being able to be suspicious of new types of malware that are becoming increasingly well disguised!
You live and breathe tech. You're a nerd. What is second nature to you is magic to the non-nerd. Just blanket calling most non-nerds 'morons'... how is that *not* arrogance?
You know, maybe people just aren't that interested in tech details? Perhaps they don't want to become systems integrators, and just want something reliable and trustworthy? Something like what Apple offers? And why shouldn't they? That's not being dumb, stupid, or moronic. It's being smart. Why spend time unnecessarily studying something they have no interest in, when they can have someone else do that for them?
Do *you* personally check up on the sources of all the food you buy? Do you personally verify the safety of the electronics you buy? Do you make checks on the sources of the medicines you buy? It's not stupidity or being a moron to find value in having others do the checking for you.
I understand that today's society encourages us to tell everyone that they're special and smart and wonderful, even when they're not. I don't subscribe to that theory, however, and object to being labeled as arrogant because of it.
Yes, clearly you've been told you are "special, smart and wonderful" a few too many times growing up. Your head is the size of a planet.
Not being a tech nerd does not relegate one to being a moron. You *are* being arrogant. You can't see the difference between being ignorant and being a moron. You can't seem to grasp that not everyone is going to have the same interests and motivations as you. For every person you are calling a "moron" simply for being as interested in tech details as you, there's something they know that would equally make *you* a moron, going by such standards.
The idea that Apple is designing their products for morons is extremely arrogant. You don't have to be a moron to appreciate quality design and things working well without having to dink around. In fact, I agree with the first person responding to you in this subthread, your assertion strikes me as much more moronic than what you are trying to claim of people who are simply not as tech savvy as you'd like.
The complaints about the apple store are not that its closed.
What Slashdot have you been visiting?
The one were complaining about Apple's "walled garden", while simultaneously avoiding saying anything that might make it sound like a good thing for the customer, is worth +5 Insightful, regardless of linguistic gymnastics or factual inconsistencies involved.
Apple's model for iOS has worked out fantastically. iOS outnumbers Android close to 2 to 1. Yet somehow, according to slashdot nerds, this model doesn't work well for consumers, and they are clamoring for alternative app stores.
Remember that the first updates after the first jailbreaks would brick peoples' iPhones. Now, that's arguably a consequence of poorly-made jailbreaks, and I'll concede that, but some people did end up with shiny paperweights, and Apple (rightfully, according to their EULA) did not do much to help them.
Wow, yeah, that sounds so awful of them!
And the update you are talking about 'bricked' iPhones that had been unlocked, not jailbroken. The unlocks overwrote the baseband. This is not something to be undertaken lightly. A later iPhone OS update included a baseband update that fixed the so-called 'bricked' phones.
...but there's something to be said for iOS being a "closed" platform with a (mostly) strict approval process
Nobody has ever really said otherwise.
The complaints about the apple store are not that its closed. The complaint is that its the only store you are allowed to use. (both as a consumer and as a developer)
Um... The part you quoted said 'iOS being a "closed" platform'. Your correction is just a restatement of that.
But, since it sounded like a way to complain about Apple, without having to acknowledge their model works, +5 Insightful!
Sure, but that's what transparency is for. And there will be a lot of eyes on them.
It will become clear pretty quickly if the "guardians" can be trusted.
The only reliable guardians so far seems to be Apple. You're right that there needs to be some sort of QA panel for Android, but the only reason there's a call for one is Google's inability to do the job themselves. It's their store, after all.
You can bitch all you want about a "walled garden", but at least it serves the consumer.
You are trying to solve the problem of how to make life easier for YOU, not the average user who would have no clue the panel existed and would not care if they did.
Actually, he's trying to solve the problem in a way that doesn't involve admitting Apple's model works better than Google's.
Slashdot Mirror
The very things you wrote fit what SuperKendall wrote, not contradict it!
Yeah, it's not like Apple ever said you didn't need 3G on your phone (since it would kill battery life)
They *didn't* say you don't need it. They said it killed battery life. And it *DID*. Newer chips use less power. At the time, 3G phones tended to have awful battery life when 3G was enabled. Now they don't. Now the same is true of 4G phones. And then it won't be. Also, 3G wasn't widely deployed, just as 4G isn't yet either. But, just like 3G, it will be.
or how you don't need multitasking (since it would kill battery life)
And it does. Which is why Apple implemented a multitasking system which works well without leading to battery problems.
And they never said, "you don't need multitasking".
or you don't need a front facing camera on your iPad (for no apparent reason)
And they never said you don't need a front facing camera.
This is exactly what SuperKendall was saying. Apple doesn't go around saying, "you don't need this". They just don't implement something until they can do it well. 3G waited for better chips. Multitasking waited for a better task model. Front facing camera waited for FaceTime and simply just when the hardware was added.
Huh? Jobs specifically said "people do not read" as a dismissal of ebook about a year before Apple launched a ebook section of their app store.
Huh? That's not what the person you replied to was saying. He wrote: 'Apple never says you "don't need something"', and he was replying to someone saying, "Apple's approach seems to be to tell you that you don't need that feature and then release it later"
Jobs' quote about books is not him saying you "don't need it". Here's his quotes:
“It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore."
and
“Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore.”
This was about Kindle, claiming it wouldn't succeed. This was not him saying that the iPad shouldn't be used for books. In fact, it was used for books from day one.
Nice to see Apple scared enough to send out the dogs.
Scared of what? That iOS has outsold Android 2-to-1? That Apple has ~80 tablet market share?
How terrifying that must be!
Nevermind the fact that companies like Apple patent things they never implement.
They patent things because they may want to implement them.
That's *a* reason. Another reason is that someone else might want to implement them. Another reason is that a camera maker, like Kodak, might want to sue Apple, and such a patent would give them leverage.
Oh, btw. A camera maker (Kodak) is suing Apple right now, and camera related patents would have helped Apple greatly.
Another reason is that it's an invention, and it's always nice to have a patent on an invention, even if you see no point in it right now. Another reason is employees get incentivized to take out patents.
That they may never do so doesn't mean it was OK to file the patent in the first place.
You've yet to show how it's not OK to patent an invention like this. Apple customers are voluntary. This patent will not force anyone to buy a product which uses this patent.
Right now that's true, because no product uses this patent. And in an unlikely, but possible future, it's true because no one has to buy an iPhone.
If I drew up specific and actionable plans to bomb your house, you would object without me acting on it.
Yes, if you intended to kill me, I'd do much more than object to it. But just talking about it (like you just did) is not the same as having any intention whatsoever of actually doing it.
I know the difference between what exists and what does not exist.
Sorry, being able to discern between reality and fantasy does not make one an apologist.
Patents are not fantasy. Corporations don't engage in fantasy as a general business principle.
Fantasy is thinking a patent is the thing it describes. Apple has a patent, that doesn't mean they will implement it. They have *loads* of patents they haven't implemented. That's reality.
It's definitely possible, but makes little sense, for Apple to implement this patent. Acting like they are going to is not rational.
If it makes little sense for them to implement the patent, then it makes little sense to patent it. Any supposed "strategic value" of a patent you never intend to use is frivolous. Don't patent crap that is objectionable, and you don't get objections. If you do, it's completely fair to voice those objections.
Nevermind the fact that companies like Apple patent things they never implement.
Having a patent isn't the same as implementing a patent. No one's saying you can't object to the content of the patent, but I am most definitely saying you can't criticize something that isn't implemented, or publicly planned to be implemented, as though it were. To do so is to engage in fantasy.
It's just an invention that they are making a legal claim of ownership of.
They do this so that they may at some point make use of it. They made decide not to. The fact that they see potential in it is the problem.
Yet another apologist.
Sorry, being able to discern between reality and fantasy does not make one an apologist.
Reality is Apple has countless patents that they never make use of. Reality is some companies reward or otherwise encourage employees to submit patents. Reality is simply having a patent, even one a company never intends to use, can be of strategic value. Reality is, this is an invention, worthy of patenting.
And reality is, iPhones don't do this now.
It's definitely possible, but makes little sense, for Apple to implement this patent. Acting like they are going to is not rational.
In the end, everyone will lose. Facebook will try to get as much data about iPhone users as possible; Apple will try to prevent Facebook from getting this data, and lock down iOS more and more. At the end of the day, iOS users will wind up with both less privacy and less freedom than ever before.
And before you know it, we are all slaves in prison camps, forced to build weapons and fight for whichever side has captured us, be it Apple or Facebook!!!
What sort of lockdown will Apple have to do here? If Facebook starts stealing user data, Apple will just block the app. If Facebook decides to make a bunch of web apps, then Apple will... do nothing. Web apps are one of the reasons Apple made mobile Safari in the first place. If Facebook finds a way to violate user privacy through mobile Safari, Apple will block the hole. How you would think this is a bad thing is difficult to fathom.
Every police car will have one installed by the end of the year.
Why? To block imaginary iPhones that have this feature? Because no existing iPhone does, and there's no reason to expect a future iPhone to have this either.
Apple has none.
Apple, as a very wealthy corporation, has plenty of freedom. I think you meant to say Apple users have none.
You may be surprised to hear this, but I am writing this of my on volition on an Apple product. Amazing, right?!
Apple customers choose to buy Apple products voluntarily and knowingly. Apple can't do this if their products offend the user's sense of self-determination.
Even if they're lighter, thinner, slicker, etc.
My phone shouldn't try to restrict me.
You don't own an iPhone because of patents for something that it doesn't even do?
Except that last one was general to all cameras, this one is specific to iphones.
What? You don't patent something that only specifically applies to your own products by name. If you are the only one who can make an iPhone, patenting something that only affects those that are interested in making an iPhone is redundant.
Apple is not engaged in "conspiracy to..." implement this patent. It's just an invention that they are making a legal claim of ownership of. Unless this ever actually makes it into an iPhone, you're getting worked up over some imaginary harm.
But whether this way of looking at it makes sense or not (I think it's disgusting), you know that the device is hostile to your desires (if not hostile to your ultimate interests of getting along with others).
Apple's customers are their users. That's where they get their money from. This is in contrast to, say, Google, whose customers are the advertisers, and their users are the product.
The flaw in your argument is this: the FSF nerd is not Apple's target demographic. *YOU* want something that almost no one else wants. Apple wants to sell things that are more desirable to more people. In fact, it's *YOUR* desires that are hostile to the wants and interests of the average person. If you had your way, people would be struggling with systems they can't understand, or simply foregoing technology altogether. If you want to call something disgusting, I submit something like that as Exhibit A.
You see, people just aren't all that interested in open source. They'd rather have something that works well than have access to the source code. Complete control over their hardware and software is something they can never have no matter what the license, so of course they will give up a theoretical benefit in exchange for a very real one.
The outrage over this story is especially twisted. It's a *patent*, not an actual iPhone feature. There's no reason to expect Apple to implement this.
Your point of view about having it be more of a proper choice is valid, and fairly common around here, but it's something that very few of Apple's customers are really interested in.
The problem with ending the cat-and-mouse game is that jailbreaking deliberately breaks iOS's security model. Regardless of whether Apple is trying to address jailbreaking specifically, simply applying security fixes will have the effect of preventing jailbreaking.
The problem with making it a choice (even if with loads of scary warnings and the like) is that all it will take is *one* app of some sort coming out in this manner and users will completely ignore the warnings. This doesn't even have to be any sort of "banned" app, it can simply be some dev who doesn't want to go through the App Store.
It's legitimate to hold that, sure, the user and developer should be able to make those decisions for themselves. But it's a pandora's box. Once you allow it, you have the likely outcome of ending up with worst of both worlds. As things stand right now, users don't really give up all that much in terms of what they are interested in, and Apple gets to provide a trustworthy and reliable experience.
The two are intricately related. And, regardless of how you look at it, Apple's model has been shown time and again to be safer for the end user than Google's.
Well, the implication is rather strong, but even ignoring the legal side of it, the sense of guilt side still remains. It's quite reasonable that having the outward appearance of piracy washed away will still make some people feel better about it. Especially since it involves a payment, which can also give a sense of recompense for past transgressions.
Right, because up to now, people have *never* put pirated music into iTunes or synced it onto their iPods!
I see you can't fathom the difference between adding files to iTunes and letting Apple scan your computer.
Um, by definition, using iTunes means letting Apple scan your music. That's fundamental to how it works. Apple presently has a system which uploads song information, completely voluntarily and opt-in as opposed to opt-out, as part of the Genius feature. The very same idiotic nonsense about "Apple will turn you in for piracy" surfaced when that feature was announced, yet somehow not a single person has been turned in to the RIAA.
Let's just agree to call it totally unvetted functionality that apple didn't have a clue about?
And let's also be honest about the fact that it wasn't malware, quite unlike what is being discussed here on the Android Market.
Trojans are a type of malware. The flashlight tethering app wasn't malware. If you want to call it a trojan because it had hidden, but non-malicious functionality, feel free. But don't act like that's what people are talking about when they say 'malware' or 'trojan'.
Depends. If I pick up a jar labeled "biohazard" and open it without finding out what the stuff inside might do to me, or finding out how to properly handle jars with such labels, then yes, yes I am.
Sorry, I must have missed the part of this story where malware is marked as "Warning: Malware".
There's no fallacy here. People complain when their phone gets jacked. People use their phone. People don't bother learning the basics about using their phone so it doesn't get jacked. That's dumb.
Yeah, it's *really* dumb of people to not know how to tell what's a trojan or not! I mean, it's really simple, you just sorta "know" when something looks suspicious, and with a little digging, bam! you now know if it's a trojan or not. I mean, *anyone* can do this, right? All you have to do is keep up on current malware trends, and have used enough software to tell the difference of what seems legit or not, including being able to be suspicious of new types of malware that are becoming increasingly well disguised!
You live and breathe tech. You're a nerd. What is second nature to you is magic to the non-nerd. Just blanket calling most non-nerds 'morons'... how is that *not* arrogance?
You know, maybe people just aren't that interested in tech details? Perhaps they don't want to become systems integrators, and just want something reliable and trustworthy? Something like what Apple offers? And why shouldn't they? That's not being dumb, stupid, or moronic. It's being smart. Why spend time unnecessarily studying something they have no interest in, when they can have someone else do that for them?
Do *you* personally check up on the sources of all the food you buy? Do you personally verify the safety of the electronics you buy? Do you make checks on the sources of the medicines you buy? It's not stupidity or being a moron to find value in having others do the checking for you.
I understand that today's society encourages us to tell everyone that they're special and smart and wonderful, even when they're not. I don't subscribe to that theory, however, and object to being labeled as arrogant because of it.
Yes, clearly you've been told you are "special, smart and wonderful" a few too many times growing up. Your head is the size of a planet.
Not being a tech nerd does not relegate one to being a moron. You *are* being arrogant. You can't see the difference between being ignorant and being a moron. You can't seem to grasp that not everyone is going to have the same interests and motivations as you. For every person you are calling a "moron" simply for being as interested in tech details as you, there's something they know that would equally make *you* a moron, going by such standards.
The idea that Apple is designing their products for morons is extremely arrogant. You don't have to be a moron to appreciate quality design and things working well without having to dink around. In fact, I agree with the first person responding to you in this subthread, your assertion strikes me as much more moronic than what you are trying to claim of people who are simply not as tech savvy as you'd like.
What Slashdot have you been visiting?
The one were complaining about Apple's "walled garden", while simultaneously avoiding saying anything that might make it sound like a good thing for the customer, is worth +5 Insightful, regardless of linguistic gymnastics or factual inconsistencies involved.
Apple's model for iOS has worked out fantastically. iOS outnumbers Android close to 2 to 1. Yet somehow, according to slashdot nerds, this model doesn't work well for consumers, and they are clamoring for alternative app stores.
Remember that the first updates after the first jailbreaks would brick peoples' iPhones. Now, that's arguably a consequence of poorly-made jailbreaks, and I'll concede that, but some people did end up with shiny paperweights, and Apple (rightfully, according to their EULA) did not do much to help them.
Wow, yeah, that sounds so awful of them!
And the update you are talking about 'bricked' iPhones that had been unlocked, not jailbroken. The unlocks overwrote the baseband. This is not something to be undertaken lightly. A later iPhone OS update included a baseband update that fixed the so-called 'bricked' phones.
Nobody has ever really said otherwise.
The complaints about the apple store are not that its closed. The complaint is that its the only store you are allowed to use. (both as a consumer and as a developer)
Um... The part you quoted said 'iOS being a "closed" platform'. Your correction is just a restatement of that.
But, since it sounded like a way to complain about Apple, without having to acknowledge their model works, +5 Insightful!
Sure, but that's what transparency is for. And there will be a lot of eyes on them.
It will become clear pretty quickly if the "guardians" can be trusted.
The only reliable guardians so far seems to be Apple. You're right that there needs to be some sort of QA panel for Android, but the only reason there's a call for one is Google's inability to do the job themselves. It's their store, after all.
You can bitch all you want about a "walled garden", but at least it serves the consumer.
You are trying to solve the problem of how to make life easier for YOU, not the average user who would have no clue the panel existed and would not care if they did.
Actually, he's trying to solve the problem in a way that doesn't involve admitting Apple's model works better than Google's.