In fact, considering that Android was announced with the founding of the Open Handset Alliance, it can be argued that Android paved the way for more open handsets that would have been roundly rejected previously. Whereas the iPhone cannot be claimed to be open at all, especially in its original iteration where it did not have the App Store.
And just like with the iPhone they'll provide an enterprise solution that allows you to put your own software on the machine through a dev account. How do you think businesses can use the iPhone?
Also, bear in mind that prior to iPhone, things were a lot more locked down. One might reasonably argue that Apple's success paved the way for more open handsets that would have been soundly rejected by the telcos previously, including Android. Just saying.
Considering that google purchased Android, Inc. in 2005, and the first iPhone wasn't announced until 2007, your argument falls flat. In addition, there already existed symbian which was open source and Nokia's Maemo. In fact, for the most part, the US had mobile phones a helluva lot more locked down than anywhere else. Yes, the iPhone was first to market but all of the arguments stating that Android only copied the iPhone, or iPhone paved the way, are wrong because of two things:
Android was in development long before the iPhone was announced or even known about by the public. Therefore they could not have 'copied' it. In addition, feature-wise, the iPhone has been playing catch up to Android for a while.
It can easily be argued that Android alone would have had the same impact on the market that the iPhone had if the order of release was reversed. Apple did get to market first, and thus reaped the benefits of being the first and only one on the market with such a phone for a while. You can give them credit for that. However, The reaction was due to the type of phone and features it allowed, not specifically due to the iPhone itself, thus if Android had been released first the same thing would have happened.
Mind you, I don't use the above to take any credit from Apple, they were innovative with the design of the iPhone. I disagree with all the "revolutionized phones" arguments, but that's my opinion. However to say that the iPhone's success can reasonably be what paved the way for more open handsets like Android is ludicrous. It was the logical progression of phones to provide features such as smartphones provide. Telcos certainly were not going to create such an OS because they preferred to keep the lock down. Therefore any 3rd party creating a smartphone OS would be more open and the telcos would not reject it.
For evidence, just look at blackberry. Long before the iPhone or Android, BlackBerrys had the most features and you could get applications from RIM for it. People could develop applications for it. The iPhone and Android just did it better, which is why you see RIM following them in their approach of the new BlackBerrys.
As many people so eloquently state on/. we are not anywhere near the majority of the market. I already see people on here who like the App Store and think it would be a great idea if they made it so that only administrators could install applications outside of the App Store. Hell, maybe they won't have a locked down MacOS as the only solution but you'll have to pay an extra fee to get a 'different version' or 'unlock' your install of MacOS to enable installation of outside software.
As far as a consumer protection standpoint, Apple has already proved that since they have such a small market share, consumer protection means nothing to them. There is no law that would stop them from locking down the desktop because they don't have anywhere near a monopoly.
I never stated anything 'game changing' 'in regards to freedom of the platform' happened. I just stated that there have been many times for things big and small where all the Apple fans said "this could never happen" and then it did, and they forgot all about the argument where they said it could never happen. One example is all the times that people said that AT&T could never lose it's exclusivity of the iPhone and that Verizon would never get an iPhone for it. Now it's almost a certainty that there will be a Verizon iPhone soon. Or maybe for the months and months leading up to the release of the iPhone 4 where Apple said 'no, we're not currently working on an iPhone 4 so please go buy our iPhone 3GS' and tons of people on/. just blindly agreed and spread this information up until they announced the iPhone 4.
Perhaps the people who stated that due to Apple's approval process there could never be malware or virii on the iPhone/iPad? Then quickly changed their tune to 'almost never' or some other quasi admission and said they never argued that it "could never happen" once it was show that there some applications did give out user details or whatever.
As far as relating to the 'freedom of the platform' the only thing that comes to mind is the recent deal with the terms of use for developers. Where Apple made a huge big deal about not allowing CS5 to do the flash -> native iPhone app conversion. About preventing any app that was not 'originally written in' one of the specified languages. Tons of people here supported them. Said Apple would never allow it and they were in the right not to. Then they changed their mind and changed the terms of use and allow it now. Most of those people changed their mind because Apple changed their mind and now support the decision.
The vast majority of Apple users (usually not the highly technical ones) just believe whatever Steve Jobs says.
Macs were and still are open. No change there either.
I'm tired of this. I never said, nor am I saying, that they are locking it down. Nor did I state they are doing this any time soon. The only thing I have said is that it is a possibility that they might do it in the near future. And that while I hope it doesn't happen, I'm not optimistic enough to believe it would never happen.
The App Store will become almost universal for OSX software because it's a better way all round, for most sorts of consumer software. The older ways of getting and installing software will still exist, but won't be used much.
And once they've reached that point, no one will complain if they make it the only way. *shrug* They'll just be 'removing unused functionality'
You can't usefully sell products in that space without getting sign off form the telcos
While it's been proven that AT&T has had an influence over the contents of the App Store, the Android market has had relatively little influence been placed by the telcos. I can only think of one instance, Skype, where a telco has influenced the Android Market. As long as you have an android device with the Market you are not at the mercy of the telcos for selling your apps. Case in point - wireless access point and usb tethering without going through the carrier.
I'll say it again. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm not saying that they will definitely lock it down. You actually make the argument I'm talking about though.
Maybe it'll start as an option, "only allow software from trusted sources" which will include the ability to add sites. As you said, you're leery of installing it if it's not from one of your trusted sources. How long until people believe that the only place to get quality and trustworthy software is from the Mac App Store? Once that happens, it's not a difficult stretch to see them locking it down to only getting software from the App Store.
Same guidelines as the iOS app store, you say you're grateful. I think it's abhorrent. It's not as bad for the Mac OS because there are other ways to install applications. But as long as all the mobile devices prevent any installation of applications outside of the App Store, I'll believe that it's possible for them to lock down the desktop. Maybe they'll start with the Mac Book Air and lock that down, marketing it for people who need a "consistent user experience" and who "don't want to worry" about installing software on their laptop, that they want it to "just work". Then once everyone has accepted this, due to great marketing of course, then move to locking down the Mac Book Pro (maybe you can get an ultimate version or pay some other fee to get an unlocked version). Then offering two versions of Mac OS, one locked down only to "trusted sources" and one that allows outside installation but costs more......etc.
As with many instances in the past with Apple products, everyone who says "that would never happen" will cheer when it does happen. Forgetting there was ever an argument where they said it could never happen.
I think that the Mac OS App Store is a good thing. I've been saying for a long time that both Mac and Windows need something similar to the package managers that Linux Distros have. And if Apple never locks down their systems, great! I'm just not optimistic enough to disregard this possibility.
Apple doesn't make choices based on these sorts of things.
By definition, Apple makes choices based on what will make them more money.
Agreed, but that's not what I said. The decisions behind the App Store are not about direct profits, but indirect profits by making the iOS devices just that much more valuable to consumers.
Profits are profits.
The fact is not about blocking any specific competitor, but blocking specific applications on no grounds other than it competes with (defined as "duplicates") some software Apple has created.
Again, that's not what was said. zuperduperman didn't say "some competing apps", but "competitors". And it's a bit disingenuous to equate "duplicate functionality" with "competing apps". That is a type of competition, but not what people mean by that.
Preventing ANY competing apps is bad for consumers. For example preventing any competing browsers on the App store. (Opera Mini does not count as a browser due to the way it functions.) Using "duplication of functionality" to reduce or prevent competition is wrong on the face of it. But they have gotten away with it, so why not pull it off for OS X? If they can market it well enough.
I'm not saying it will definitely happen, I'm saying it's possible. That it would not surprise me to see in the next year or two, Steve Jobs at a keynote saying how beneficial it is for the next version of MacOS to only allow installation from "approved app stores".
And I'm saying it's not possible, for any reasonable value of "possible".
I hope you're right. Seriously. But I highly doubt it. In fact, in a few years I highly expect you to be defending why Apple has decided to lock it down.
You think that Apple is hell-bent on control. What they are is hell-bent on user experience, and only exert control when they think it will provide for a better user experience. They don't do this stupidly.
They are hell-bent on control. User-experience is a reason for this, yes. As for not doing it stupidly, it depends on your opinion. I think that the app approval process is stupid. A vague set of guidelines governing what you can submit. Even when they finally release some guidelines to shed some light on the process, people find out there are unwritten rules that they can break and be rejected for.
What Apple will do here is just like they've done with iTunes. They will make it a great service, but they will do nothing to block other services.
At first.
It adds no value to limit this. Likewise, it adds no value to require software be from Apple's App Store, or some other set of approved sources.
Sure it does. It helps them control the user experience of the desktop in a way they've never been able to before. It's a strategy that makes sense, get the idea of a locked down app store accepted by the masses in a situation that makes sense, the mobile space. Then get an app store that is not locked down accepted by the masses on the desktop. Once people are used to the idea of a locked down app store (considering that Microsoft is doing the same for WP7. And there are rumors that Windows 8 will have an app store type thing like the new App Store for Mac OS), it doesn't seem to be a large stretch to market a locked down approach in a new OS just for, lets say, netbooks, or some other smaller device that get's locked down. And work they're way up to the desktop. By the time they do it, everyone will just accept it, like every other time Apple locks something down.
*Maybe* if there was to be some extreme and continuous outbreak of malware for Mac OS X, *maybe* Apple would consider requiring signed apps, but even then it seems absurd.
Why would you think an open platform would suddenly force everyone to use the Mac app store, after the fact? That stretches credulity and would never pass muster from the customers, or the FCC.
To protect the consumers, If they can succeed with it on their mobile device, they can use the same reasoning to succeed with it on the desktop. In a couple years, once everyone is used to the App Store and it is sufficiently populated, I can't see the average Mac costumer having a problem with it. As long as all the Apps THEY want are available from the Mac App Store or Steam or whatever else might crop up, they'll be fine. Just as with the iPhone they'll view it as being protected from mal-ware and quality control. There was no large outbreak of mal-ware on mobile devices before the iPhone yet they used the fear of it to convince the consumers that it was in their best interest to have the locked down App Store for it. Marketing at its finest.
Once all that major software is available from the App Store, and that 30% has been negotiated down by the big companies like Adobe and Microsoft, would it really be that much of a stretch?
Do you think the people who run Apple are completely stupid?
From the ones I've dealt with, I'd definitely wager a significant portion of them are. Granted, it's not just Apple. In my opinion the majority of all people who use any computers are completely stupid. There's a reason that there is a stereotype about "stupid users" and that geeks/developers/customer support have made fun of users for almost as long as the PC has existed.
Once again, I'm not saying this is a highly likely, run for cover, armageddon scenario. Just a possibility that is worth being wary of.
Apple doesn't make choices based on these sorts of things.
By definition, Apple makes choices based on what will make them more money.
The fact is not about blocking any specific competitor, but blocking specific applications on no grounds other than it competes with (defined as "duplicates") some software Apple has created. On the face of it, this is bad for consumers.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, Apple has a habit of doing things that are considered to be very controversial and then using marketing and clueless users to turn it to their advantage.
I'm not saying it will definitely happen, I'm saying it's possible. That it would not surprise me to see in the next year or two, Steve Jobs at a keynote saying how beneficial it is for the next version of MacOS to only allow installation from "approved app stores". That you can get software from Steam, from the Mac App Store, etc. but cannot just go download software from "unknown locations and of questionable quality" so that it will enhance the user experience of the MacOS. And many people who have been bitten by downloading malware or a virus on their Windows machines saying how this will provide quality software and protect the consumers. Etc.
You call it absurd. I call it a nightmare. You say it could never happen. I pray that it never happens. This is not "Anti-Apple Fanboism". This is just me being wary of Apple achieving its dream of complete vertical control where not only will it control the hardware and operating system of its machines, but the rest of the software too, and call it a "feature".
That is a HUGE HUGE if. I didn't see any sign they plan to stop you from downloading and installing whatever you want. All these upmodded "The Apple machine is locking down OS X!" comments are quite sad.
I actually agree with you somewhat. The specifically stated that this will not preclude any other method of installing whatever you want. However, the flip side of this is that Apple has repeatedly stated that the 'walled garden' is the way to go. It makes the consumer 'safer' and leads to a better 'customer experience'. Apple also has a history of saying one thing and doing something completely different, or even the exact opposite. Therefore, while I don't condemn the idea of an App store for the Mac. I am wary about it. It is something that should be watched, and if/when Apple actually does eliminate other methods of installing what you want, (either by locking down OS X or doing away with it completely in favor of iOS Desktop or something) then Apple should be blasted. (Though I have a feeling it will be met with thunderous applause at some keynote by Steve Jobs. *sigh*).
Sigh... I should have invested in a tin foil hat startup years ago. I probably could have retired by now!
There's a difference. If the Mac app store leads to a lockdown like iOS where you can ONLY install apps via the App store, then that's not like Linux distributions and package managers at all. Every distribution and it's package manager does not prevent the installation of programs outside of the package manager.
Is DDoS the right answer? No. Is it funny and amusing? Yes. Does Gene Simmons deserve it? Well that depends, does a person who hits a beehive with a stick deserve to get stung?
Clearly you must be new to the internet because porn sites charge the consumer not the ISP. No matter what ISP I use, I am able to access any of the porn sites and can pay to have a subscription. However, if my ISP decides not to carry ESPN, then I don't get a choice at all.
TUNING ADAPTERS ARE A PURE PLAY AGAINST PIRACY AT THE EXPENSE OF SUBSCRIBERS
Ya know. Putting something in all caps does not provide any evidence that you are right and just makes you seem like an ass. In addition, bws provided evidence that it is to save bandwidth. You provided a story about what you have observed. I believe the technical evidence describing how the system works, why it works that way and how it DOES save bandwidth is much more convincing than you claiming that since you can take advantage of this system to have such and such amount of different streams at once, it proves that you are right when it in fact does no such thing.
What hardware features? In my experience the custom roms usually include the firmware for the phone which is why when you look for custom roms, you find a rom for your device. Usually the only hardware features are possibly a keyboard, the buttons, the touch screen, camera, wifi and bluetooth. While you might find early versions of a Rom where some of these features don't work. As Roms mature they either get a hold of the firmware needed or community will write their own.
A great example is in some of those old G1s and other phones stuck on 1.5/1.6 who have managed to get updated to 2.0/2.1/2.2 via custom roms.
I know you're being sarcastic but maybe they're really not supposed to. Maybe a mark of a great society is one where record executives, lawyers and politicians die cold, hungry, alone and unloved.
Not particularly fond of this particular meme, but... FTFY
Record executives and politicians dying cold, hungry, alone and unloved? Sounds like a paradise.... =P
When you consider that the "Health Care Industry" also includes the Health Insurance companies, yea. I do blame the Health Care Industry for charging too much too.
There are two choices. Fragment or progress. I'd prefer my phone's OS progress, get better and get newer features. If I have to wait and install a new version of it to get it, then so be it. With the "one-click root" scripts that are available now for a lot of android devices. There is no excuse for someone to whine about how their manufacturer didn't support their device after a certain time period. Do some research and find which manufacturer's support their devices in the past. Pick an android device from a manufacturer who will support it. When support inevitably ends (which is true even for iPhones, such as 1 and 2) then you can either get a new device or upgrade it yourself, the same is true for any computer.
You do realize from a programmer standpoint there are two TOTAL ways to input data into Android from the user, the touch screen or the keyboard. It doesn't matter whether that keyboard is virtual or physical, the input works the same way. (Give or take the possible maneuvering of your interface to look nicer with the virtual keyboard if you like).
As far as I know, all Android capable devices have a touch screen. (correct me if i'm wrong). So where is this 10 - 20 different kinds of input? Gestures aren't hardware, they are dictated by reading a specific set of touches, other than the API and language differences, it wouldn't be any different conceptually on the iPhone. You either get info via a keyboard (virtual in the iPhone) or from the touch screen.
Designing a UI is all based on how you want your user to input data, landscape or portrait. Touch or keyboard. Again, conceptually no different from the iPhone.
i hear there is something called swype out there that a lot of handsets have.
Do some research. Swype is just a virtual keyboard. The input would be given to the application the same way regardless what virtual/physical keyboard is used. You just request the contents of the text box.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, considering that Android was announced with the founding of the Open Handset Alliance, it can be argued that Android paved the way for more open handsets that would have been roundly rejected previously. Whereas the iPhone cannot be claimed to be open at all, especially in its original iteration where it did not have the App Store.
just saying.....
And just like with the iPhone they'll provide an enterprise solution that allows you to put your own software on the machine through a dev account. How do you think businesses can use the iPhone?
Also, bear in mind that prior to iPhone, things were a lot more locked down. One might reasonably argue that Apple's success paved the way for more open handsets that would have been soundly rejected by the telcos previously, including Android. Just saying.
Considering that google purchased Android, Inc. in 2005, and the first iPhone wasn't announced until 2007, your argument falls flat. In addition, there already existed symbian which was open source and Nokia's Maemo. In fact, for the most part, the US had mobile phones a helluva lot more locked down than anywhere else. Yes, the iPhone was first to market but all of the arguments stating that Android only copied the iPhone, or iPhone paved the way, are wrong because of two things:
Mind you, I don't use the above to take any credit from Apple, they were innovative with the design of the iPhone. I disagree with all the "revolutionized phones" arguments, but that's my opinion. However to say that the iPhone's success can reasonably be what paved the way for more open handsets like Android is ludicrous. It was the logical progression of phones to provide features such as smartphones provide. Telcos certainly were not going to create such an OS because they preferred to keep the lock down. Therefore any 3rd party creating a smartphone OS would be more open and the telcos would not reject it.
For evidence, just look at blackberry. Long before the iPhone or Android, BlackBerrys had the most features and you could get applications from RIM for it. People could develop applications for it. The iPhone and Android just did it better, which is why you see RIM following them in their approach of the new BlackBerrys.
As many people so eloquently state on /. we are not anywhere near the majority of the market. I already see people on here who like the App Store and think it would be a great idea if they made it so that only administrators could install applications outside of the App Store. Hell, maybe they won't have a locked down MacOS as the only solution but you'll have to pay an extra fee to get a 'different version' or 'unlock' your install of MacOS to enable installation of outside software.
As far as a consumer protection standpoint, Apple has already proved that since they have such a small market share, consumer protection means nothing to them. There is no law that would stop them from locking down the desktop because they don't have anywhere near a monopoly.
I never stated anything 'game changing' 'in regards to freedom of the platform' happened. I just stated that there have been many times for things big and small where all the Apple fans said "this could never happen" and then it did, and they forgot all about the argument where they said it could never happen. One example is all the times that people said that AT&T could never lose it's exclusivity of the iPhone and that Verizon would never get an iPhone for it. Now it's almost a certainty that there will be a Verizon iPhone soon. Or maybe for the months and months leading up to the release of the iPhone 4 where Apple said 'no, we're not currently working on an iPhone 4 so please go buy our iPhone 3GS' and tons of people on /. just blindly agreed and spread this information up until they announced the iPhone 4.
Perhaps the people who stated that due to Apple's approval process there could never be malware or virii on the iPhone/iPad? Then quickly changed their tune to 'almost never' or some other quasi admission and said they never argued that it "could never happen" once it was show that there some applications did give out user details or whatever.
As far as relating to the 'freedom of the platform' the only thing that comes to mind is the recent deal with the terms of use for developers. Where Apple made a huge big deal about not allowing CS5 to do the flash -> native iPhone app conversion. About preventing any app that was not 'originally written in' one of the specified languages. Tons of people here supported them. Said Apple would never allow it and they were in the right not to. Then they changed their mind and changed the terms of use and allow it now. Most of those people changed their mind because Apple changed their mind and now support the decision.
The vast majority of Apple users (usually not the highly technical ones) just believe whatever Steve Jobs says.
Macs were and still are open. No change there either.
I'm tired of this. I never said, nor am I saying, that they are locking it down. Nor did I state they are doing this any time soon. The only thing I have said is that it is a possibility that they might do it in the near future. And that while I hope it doesn't happen, I'm not optimistic enough to believe it would never happen.
The App Store will become almost universal for OSX software because it's a better way all round, for most sorts of consumer software. The older ways of getting and installing software will still exist, but won't be used much.
And once they've reached that point, no one will complain if they make it the only way. *shrug* They'll just be 'removing unused functionality'
You can't usefully sell products in that space without getting sign off form the telcos
While it's been proven that AT&T has had an influence over the contents of the App Store, the Android market has had relatively little influence been placed by the telcos. I can only think of one instance, Skype, where a telco has influenced the Android Market. As long as you have an android device with the Market you are not at the mercy of the telcos for selling your apps. Case in point - wireless access point and usb tethering without going through the carrier.
I'll say it again. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm not saying that they will definitely lock it down. You actually make the argument I'm talking about though.
Maybe it'll start as an option, "only allow software from trusted sources" which will include the ability to add sites. As you said, you're leery of installing it if it's not from one of your trusted sources. How long until people believe that the only place to get quality and trustworthy software is from the Mac App Store? Once that happens, it's not a difficult stretch to see them locking it down to only getting software from the App Store.
Same guidelines as the iOS app store, you say you're grateful. I think it's abhorrent. It's not as bad for the Mac OS because there are other ways to install applications. But as long as all the mobile devices prevent any installation of applications outside of the App Store, I'll believe that it's possible for them to lock down the desktop. Maybe they'll start with the Mac Book Air and lock that down, marketing it for people who need a "consistent user experience" and who "don't want to worry" about installing software on their laptop, that they want it to "just work". Then once everyone has accepted this, due to great marketing of course, then move to locking down the Mac Book Pro (maybe you can get an ultimate version or pay some other fee to get an unlocked version). Then offering two versions of Mac OS, one locked down only to "trusted sources" and one that allows outside installation but costs more......etc.
As with many instances in the past with Apple products, everyone who says "that would never happen" will cheer when it does happen. Forgetting there was ever an argument where they said it could never happen.
I think that the Mac OS App Store is a good thing. I've been saying for a long time that both Mac and Windows need something similar to the package managers that Linux Distros have. And if Apple never locks down their systems, great! I'm just not optimistic enough to disregard this possibility.
Apple doesn't make choices based on these sorts of things.
By definition, Apple makes choices based on what will make them more money.
Agreed, but that's not what I said. The decisions behind the App Store are not about direct profits, but indirect profits by making the iOS devices just that much more valuable to consumers.
Profits are profits.
The fact is not about blocking any specific competitor, but blocking specific applications on no grounds other than it competes with (defined as "duplicates") some software Apple has created.
Again, that's not what was said. zuperduperman didn't say "some competing apps", but "competitors". And it's a bit disingenuous to equate "duplicate functionality" with "competing apps". That is a type of competition, but not what people mean by that.
Preventing ANY competing apps is bad for consumers. For example preventing any competing browsers on the App store. (Opera Mini does not count as a browser due to the way it functions.) Using "duplication of functionality" to reduce or prevent competition is wrong on the face of it. But they have gotten away with it, so why not pull it off for OS X? If they can market it well enough.
I'm not saying it will definitely happen, I'm saying it's possible. That it would not surprise me to see in the next year or two, Steve Jobs at a keynote saying how beneficial it is for the next version of MacOS to only allow installation from "approved app stores".
And I'm saying it's not possible, for any reasonable value of "possible".
I hope you're right. Seriously. But I highly doubt it. In fact, in a few years I highly expect you to be defending why Apple has decided to lock it down.
You think that Apple is hell-bent on control. What they are is hell-bent on user experience, and only exert control when they think it will provide for a better user experience. They don't do this stupidly.
They are hell-bent on control. User-experience is a reason for this, yes. As for not doing it stupidly, it depends on your opinion. I think that the app approval process is stupid. A vague set of guidelines governing what you can submit. Even when they finally release some guidelines to shed some light on the process, people find out there are unwritten rules that they can break and be rejected for.
What Apple will do here is just like they've done with iTunes. They will make it a great service, but they will do nothing to block other services.
At first.
It adds no value to limit this. Likewise, it adds no value to require software be from Apple's App Store, or some other set of approved sources.
Sure it does. It helps them control the user experience of the desktop in a way they've never been able to before. It's a strategy that makes sense, get the idea of a locked down app store accepted by the masses in a situation that makes sense, the mobile space. Then get an app store that is not locked down accepted by the masses on the desktop. Once people are used to the idea of a locked down app store (considering that Microsoft is doing the same for WP7. And there are rumors that Windows 8 will have an app store type thing like the new App Store for Mac OS), it doesn't seem to be a large stretch to market a locked down approach in a new OS just for, lets say, netbooks, or some other smaller device that get's locked down. And work they're way up to the desktop. By the time they do it, everyone will just accept it, like every other time Apple locks something down.
*Maybe* if there was to be some extreme and continuous outbreak of malware for Mac OS X, *maybe* Apple would consider requiring signed apps, but even then it seems absurd.
This is actually more b
Why would you think an open platform would suddenly force everyone to use the Mac app store, after the fact? That stretches credulity and would never pass muster from the customers, or the FCC.
To protect the consumers, If they can succeed with it on their mobile device, they can use the same reasoning to succeed with it on the desktop. In a couple years, once everyone is used to the App Store and it is sufficiently populated, I can't see the average Mac costumer having a problem with it. As long as all the Apps THEY want are available from the Mac App Store or Steam or whatever else might crop up, they'll be fine. Just as with the iPhone they'll view it as being protected from mal-ware and quality control. There was no large outbreak of mal-ware on mobile devices before the iPhone yet they used the fear of it to convince the consumers that it was in their best interest to have the locked down App Store for it. Marketing at its finest.
Once all that major software is available from the App Store, and that 30% has been negotiated down by the big companies like Adobe and Microsoft, would it really be that much of a stretch?
Do you think the people who run Apple are completely stupid?
From the ones I've dealt with, I'd definitely wager a significant portion of them are. Granted, it's not just Apple. In my opinion the majority of all people who use any computers are completely stupid. There's a reason that there is a stereotype about "stupid users" and that geeks/developers/customer support have made fun of users for almost as long as the PC has existed.
Once again, I'm not saying this is a highly likely, run for cover, armageddon scenario. Just a possibility that is worth being wary of.
Apple doesn't make choices based on these sorts of things.
By definition, Apple makes choices based on what will make them more money.
The fact is not about blocking any specific competitor, but blocking specific applications on no grounds other than it competes with (defined as "duplicates") some software Apple has created. On the face of it, this is bad for consumers.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, Apple has a habit of doing things that are considered to be very controversial and then using marketing and clueless users to turn it to their advantage.
I'm not saying it will definitely happen, I'm saying it's possible. That it would not surprise me to see in the next year or two, Steve Jobs at a keynote saying how beneficial it is for the next version of MacOS to only allow installation from "approved app stores". That you can get software from Steam, from the Mac App Store, etc. but cannot just go download software from "unknown locations and of questionable quality" so that it will enhance the user experience of the MacOS. And many people who have been bitten by downloading malware or a virus on their Windows machines saying how this will provide quality software and protect the consumers. Etc.
You call it absurd. I call it a nightmare. You say it could never happen. I pray that it never happens. This is not "Anti-Apple Fanboism". This is just me being wary of Apple achieving its dream of complete vertical control where not only will it control the hardware and operating system of its machines, but the rest of the software too, and call it a "feature".
That is a HUGE HUGE if. I didn't see any sign they plan to stop you from downloading and installing whatever you want. All these upmodded "The Apple machine is locking down OS X!" comments are quite sad.
I actually agree with you somewhat. The specifically stated that this will not preclude any other method of installing whatever you want. However, the flip side of this is that Apple has repeatedly stated that the 'walled garden' is the way to go. It makes the consumer 'safer' and leads to a better 'customer experience'. Apple also has a history of saying one thing and doing something completely different, or even the exact opposite. Therefore, while I don't condemn the idea of an App store for the Mac. I am wary about it. It is something that should be watched, and if/when Apple actually does eliminate other methods of installing what you want, (either by locking down OS X or doing away with it completely in favor of iOS Desktop or something) then Apple should be blasted. (Though I have a feeling it will be met with thunderous applause at some keynote by Steve Jobs. *sigh*).
Sigh... I should have invested in a tin foil hat startup years ago. I probably could have retired by now!
Amen to that
There's a difference. If the Mac app store leads to a lockdown like iOS where you can ONLY install apps via the App store, then that's not like Linux distributions and package managers at all. Every distribution and it's package manager does not prevent the installation of programs outside of the package manager.
The point to realize is this:
Is DDoS the right answer? No. Is it funny and amusing? Yes. Does Gene Simmons deserve it? Well that depends, does a person who hits a beehive with a stick deserve to get stung?
Actually it's not just the Slashdot crowd. A lot of geeks differentiate between the two. Especially actual hackers.
Clearly you must be new to the internet because porn sites charge the consumer not the ISP. No matter what ISP I use, I am able to access any of the porn sites and can pay to have a subscription. However, if my ISP decides not to carry ESPN, then I don't get a choice at all.
TUNING ADAPTERS ARE A PURE PLAY AGAINST PIRACY AT THE EXPENSE OF SUBSCRIBERS
Ya know. Putting something in all caps does not provide any evidence that you are right and just makes you seem like an ass. In addition, bws provided evidence that it is to save bandwidth. You provided a story about what you have observed. I believe the technical evidence describing how the system works, why it works that way and how it DOES save bandwidth is much more convincing than you claiming that since you can take advantage of this system to have such and such amount of different streams at once, it proves that you are right when it in fact does no such thing.
What hardware features? In my experience the custom roms usually include the firmware for the phone which is why when you look for custom roms, you find a rom for your device. Usually the only hardware features are possibly a keyboard, the buttons, the touch screen, camera, wifi and bluetooth. While you might find early versions of a Rom where some of these features don't work. As Roms mature they either get a hold of the firmware needed or community will write their own.
A great example is in some of those old G1s and other phones stuck on 1.5/1.6 who have managed to get updated to 2.0/2.1/2.2 via custom roms.
or one where different people are the ones in power :)
Not particularly fond of this particular meme, but... FTFY
Record executives and politicians dying cold, hungry, alone and unloved? Sounds like a paradise.... =P
When you consider that the "Health Care Industry" also includes the Health Insurance companies, yea. I do blame the Health Care Industry for charging too much too.
Among other problems in the industry...
There are two choices. Fragment or progress. I'd prefer my phone's OS progress, get better and get newer features. If I have to wait and install a new version of it to get it, then so be it. With the "one-click root" scripts that are available now for a lot of android devices. There is no excuse for someone to whine about how their manufacturer didn't support their device after a certain time period. Do some research and find which manufacturer's support their devices in the past. Pick an android device from a manufacturer who will support it. When support inevitably ends (which is true even for iPhones, such as 1 and 2) then you can either get a new device or upgrade it yourself, the same is true for any computer.
So you root it and install the version yourself. =P
You do realize from a programmer standpoint there are two TOTAL ways to input data into Android from the user, the touch screen or the keyboard. It doesn't matter whether that keyboard is virtual or physical, the input works the same way. (Give or take the possible maneuvering of your interface to look nicer with the virtual keyboard if you like).
As far as I know, all Android capable devices have a touch screen. (correct me if i'm wrong). So where is this 10 - 20 different kinds of input? Gestures aren't hardware, they are dictated by reading a specific set of touches, other than the API and language differences, it wouldn't be any different conceptually on the iPhone. You either get info via a keyboard (virtual in the iPhone) or from the touch screen.
Designing a UI is all based on how you want your user to input data, landscape or portrait. Touch or keyboard. Again, conceptually no different from the iPhone.
i hear there is something called swype out there that a lot of handsets have.
Do some research. Swype is just a virtual keyboard. The input would be given to the application the same way regardless what virtual/physical keyboard is used. You just request the contents of the text box.
Yet Google has said that Android alone has generated billions of dollars in revenue for them already.....hmm...