the Facebook for iPhone app is pretty crappy right now. You can't do much with it.
There's a little incongruency though, in that because the iPhone has a real web browser, it's a lot better to just go to the full website (full functionality).
the Facebook for iPhone app is good for browsing quickly while on the go, but if you want to actually do anything beyond look at a status, a bookmark to the.com is much better.
Agreed. I don't see how this would ever pay itself back.
I know Facebook is valuable because of the sheer volume of information about individuals in contains and the high site traffic, but I don't see how the value could ever be repaid with advertising and product cross-promotion.
I bet that soon you get to hear it will stay on 1.5 "for best hardware and software experience" (aka, we can't be bothered to waste labor on figuring out how to get it to work with our POS phone)
I feel your pain... I got one of those initially, but eventually (as many have done) paid full price for a no one just to not have to use an AT&T/motorola android phone anymore
You're making Jobs' point. He's not saying Android is closed, he's saying it's fragmented - that the experience differs widely by phone and carrier.
I was saying, as a corollary, that there doesn't seem to exist any such animal as a totally open Android phone.
The manufacturers have built in a profit layer which is bundled software, ad placement, etc. They don't want people simply wiping the device when they get home and removing that.
But if there's junkware piled on that even moderately advanced users can't remove, and if (like Motorola has done) there are countermeasures in place to keep you from changing the phone from its factory configuration, you still are in a walled garden. And at the end of the day for 99% of users there's no meaningful difference related to the "open" aspect vs. if they had an iPhone or a Palm or Windows mobile.
I'm not basing Android, I wish there was a handset that was truly open. Not just an open source OS, but a real open platform.
Point granted - you have choice between manufacturers so there is some ability for end user control of the Android experience there.
But if all manufacturers are doing this, then you're still being limited by what's good for the company's share price rather than what you want to do with the device you've already paid for.
My point is, the platform may be "open" if the operating system is open source, but not in a meaningful way if the user doesn't have control over the device.
If manufacturers are locking the device down so you can't sideload apps or re-ROM or do whatever you want to do with it, I don't think that's really open.
They are doing the same thing Apple does - lock a device down so you can only experience it in the way Apple chooses to allow you to. Or HTC, or Motorola.
(I had an Android phone from AT&T where you weren't allowed to change the search tool from Yahoo to anything else, you weren't allowed to install unapproved apps, etc etc.)
Is a platform really open if the user can't do anything with it? Or are we looking at an open source OS in the way we look at fish in an aquarium?
Apple isn't selling the same thing as Motorola or HTC are selling. Apple sells the smoothness/simplicity/overall "goodness" of user experience. It's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that Apple in any way wants to emulate Google or Android.
And I'm not an Apple apologist, I just recognize what he is saying for what it is. It's only a critique of what "open" really means where the rubber meets the road. Open is a great concept on the mobile platform, but when have we really seen it?
Maybe it's "open" in a way, but with Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc. locking things down at a different layer, is there any functional difference for the average end user?
This is the point Jobs is making and actually I agree with it.
A platform is not really "open" if it's only open in a way that 1%ers (1% most technical users) can do anything with it that benefits from openness.
The biggest manufacturers are fragmenting Android by installing their own worthless bloatware, I mean, end-user experience, over the top.
And if the users don't do anything beyond use the phone more or less as-is - customizing the pre-packaged frontend, installing approved apps from the approved app store - is it really open, or just another brand of the same thing iOS is?
AT&T didn't allow you to do this with their initial android offerings - can't comment on the new ones. It was a walled garden just the same as the Apple experience.
Whenever I am offered the opportunity to opt out of something by a company, I know it's probably a good idea to opt out.
Also, I've had very flaky internet service the past week or so, although I am not in this market (Minneapolis area). My equipment all seems to work fine, and of course there could be any number of causes, but this seems interesting.
He was a blank slate that let everyone believe whatever they wanted to believe about him.
In reality, the man is weak, politically inept, arrogant, and unable to see the world outside of his own academic contextualization.
It's our own fault. That is not to say I think McCain would have been a good choice either.
We hired someone for the job that was as close to picking someone randomly off the street as we've ever done. We should have demanded credentials, experience... anything. We should have done our homework.
Slashdot Mirror
the Facebook for iPhone app is pretty crappy right now. You can't do much with it.
.com is much better.
There's a little incongruency though, in that because the iPhone has a real web browser, it's a lot better to just go to the full website (full functionality).
the Facebook for iPhone app is good for browsing quickly while on the go, but if you want to actually do anything beyond look at a status, a bookmark to the
Agreed. I don't see how this would ever pay itself back.
I know Facebook is valuable because of the sheer volume of information about individuals in contains and the high site traffic, but I don't see how the value could ever be repaid with advertising and product cross-promotion.
I bet that soon you get to hear it will stay on 1.5 "for best hardware and software experience" (aka, we can't be bothered to waste labor on figuring out how to get it to work with our POS phone)
I feel your pain... I got one of those initially, but eventually (as many have done) paid full price for a no one just to not have to use an AT&T/motorola android phone anymore
Shouldn't be flamebait - taking an accurate shot at a company like Motorola for being evil is not flameworthy.
You're making Jobs' point. He's not saying Android is closed, he's saying it's fragmented - that the experience differs widely by phone and carrier.
I was saying, as a corollary, that there doesn't seem to exist any such animal as a totally open Android phone.
The manufacturers have built in a profit layer which is bundled software, ad placement, etc. They don't want people simply wiping the device when they get home and removing that.
I'm not arguing that it isn't possible.
But if there's junkware piled on that even moderately advanced users can't remove, and if (like Motorola has done) there are countermeasures in place to keep you from changing the phone from its factory configuration, you still are in a walled garden. And at the end of the day for 99% of users there's no meaningful difference related to the "open" aspect vs. if they had an iPhone or a Palm or Windows mobile.
I'm not basing Android, I wish there was a handset that was truly open. Not just an open source OS, but a real open platform.
Point granted - you have choice between manufacturers so there is some ability for end user control of the Android experience there.
But if all manufacturers are doing this, then you're still being limited by what's good for the company's share price rather than what you want to do with the device you've already paid for.
But you could if you wanted to. No hardware manufacturer is taking specific steps to frustrate, disable, or lock down your ability to do it.
My point is, the platform may be "open" if the operating system is open source, but not in a meaningful way if the user doesn't have control over the device.
If manufacturers are locking the device down so you can't sideload apps or re-ROM or do whatever you want to do with it, I don't think that's really open.
They are doing the same thing Apple does - lock a device down so you can only experience it in the way Apple chooses to allow you to. Or HTC, or Motorola.
(I had an Android phone from AT&T where you weren't allowed to change the search tool from Yahoo to anything else, you weren't allowed to install unapproved apps, etc etc.)
Is a platform really open if the user can't do anything with it? Or are we looking at an open source OS in the way we look at fish in an aquarium?
Yes - these are two different market niches. It's hardly a "lashout"
In Soviet Russia, confuse stuff YOU!
Apple isn't selling the same thing as Motorola or HTC are selling. Apple sells the smoothness/simplicity/overall "goodness" of user experience. It's a fundamental misunderstanding to say that Apple in any way wants to emulate Google or Android.
And I'm not an Apple apologist, I just recognize what he is saying for what it is. It's only a critique of what "open" really means where the rubber meets the road. Open is a great concept on the mobile platform, but when have we really seen it?
Maybe it's "open" in a way, but with Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc. locking things down at a different layer, is there any functional difference for the average end user?
This is the point Jobs is making and actually I agree with it.
A platform is not really "open" if it's only open in a way that 1%ers (1% most technical users) can do anything with it that benefits from openness.
The biggest manufacturers are fragmenting Android by installing their own worthless bloatware, I mean, end-user experience, over the top.
And if the users don't do anything beyond use the phone more or less as-is - customizing the pre-packaged frontend, installing approved apps from the approved app store - is it really open, or just another brand of the same thing iOS is?
AT&T didn't allow you to do this with their initial android offerings - can't comment on the new ones. It was a walled garden just the same as the Apple experience.
No Uverse here yet, but other friends have had the same experience. Canning cable gave them more channels, more boxes, better quality for less money.
Great.
Like I don't pay far, far, FAR above market for what I get from Comcast already (lack of other options...)
For those of us on Comcast, what does this mean?
Whenever I am offered the opportunity to opt out of something by a company, I know it's probably a good idea to opt out.
Also, I've had very flaky internet service the past week or so, although I am not in this market (Minneapolis area). My equipment all seems to work fine, and of course there could be any number of causes, but this seems interesting.
Saying B is not worse "then" A is not a denial that A is true.
He was a blank slate that let everyone believe whatever they wanted to believe about him.
In reality, the man is weak, politically inept, arrogant, and unable to see the world outside of his own academic contextualization.
It's our own fault. That is not to say I think McCain would have been a good choice either.
We hired someone for the job that was as close to picking someone randomly off the street as we've ever done. We should have demanded credentials, experience... anything. We should have done our homework.
Yes - there's a reason why every corporate buyer of workstations buys or leases them. It's not that nobody ever thought of this, either.
Why not just give people freedom, and lock out the offending devices if a problem occurs?
I think it just means they are still billing users who cancelled years ago, per standard practice.
Also, there are users who wanted to cancel years ago, but are still lost in the phone tree. Those are still active accounts too.
The acquisition was such a disaster (due to AOL suckage) TW jettisoned them.
While this does seem like evil copyright trolling, I almost hope they win and purge the web of the stupid rollover images forever.