I've subscribed to the NYT for years. I read online. I've read the app. The app is hands-down a better experience than the website (plus you can take it on the subway/airplane/wilderness). I appreciate the sentiment of your comment, but anything that is improperly engineered can fail - regardless if it's an app or a website, that's besides the point. It's not by virtue of it being an "app" that it failed, it's by virtue of an error in the construction. An error in the code of an app will crash the app. An error in the code of a website will crash the website. Whether we choose to call one bit of code an app or another a website, neither is immune from human error.
I think it's important to maintain an open mind when introduced to potential threats and not disregard them based on "gut" reactions.
That said, over the past 20 years, we've seen adoption of digital devices grow by orders of magnitude, and over the *exact* same period, witnessed the safest period in the history of aviation in terms of accidents that can't be attributed to something specific (ie, pilot error) -- not to mention overall number of aviation accidents. So yeah, I'm dubious about this anecdotal evidence.
Yeah, by matter of policy Apple bans it. Occasionaly (and by no means always) Apple breaks a jailbroken phone with an update. But the way you phrase it, you'd imply that Apple is smackin' down with lawsuits, cease-n'-desist, and disabling the phones permanently. Now I've known a lot of people to jailbreak their phones, and not one of them has ever EVER ended up with a bricked phone permanently. So, fight, well, yes, but, um, how? Oh "fight" by doing precisely nothing? Cause that's what Apple does in practice to users who jailbreak their phones: absolutely nothing.
With all due respect, this is not a problem with the functionality of the device, rather a problem with the state's ability to peer into things and interpret them in ways it shouldn't. Apple concealing this database would make it slightly more difficult for police to deduce something about you, but it certainly doesn't stop them - the only thing that would stop the "problem" you're describing would be reform of pertinent laws.
For one thing, admissibility in court hasn't even begun to be established. This location information is loose at best, and flat-out-wrong in a lot of cases (apparently I've been to Jamaica a few times in recent years; I must have been under the influence at the time as I've no recollection).
To put it simply, it's reasonable to wish that Apple wouldn't leave personal or private information exposed. It's reasonable to expect that of yourself, as well - one shouldn't leave their phone about, it's full of *personal information*. So in order for any breach to occur, both Apple and end-user must fail at this "reasonable" responsibility.
Right. That's like asking "Will the cars of the future run on gas?" to car owners pulled up at an electric-charging-station. It's a fine question, but it says nothing about the broader trend or popularity of the platform.
This is all true and the parallels are many. It's interesting because in many ways Apple is behaving exactly as they did in the mid-80s, when they really began loosing the desktop war.
However, just for the sake of conversation, I'd like to point out a few things that have changed:
First, Steve Jobs. Had he never been given the boot, it's hard to say how things would of gone with the desktop wars. I'm not suggesting that Apple would have dominated, only that we'll never know. Sometimes success is result of many factors - ie, a tightly controlled corporation run by MBAs might not be the same as a tightly controlled company run by SJ. Right combination at the right time. All I'm saying is the man has sufficiently dominated when it comes to every product introduced since his return - including the 100% closed and 75% market penetrated iPod. So that's variable number one.
Second, the market has matured. Personal computers are still a relatively new thing; it's a market segment that is developing - and the mobile computer market is still in a baby-walker. As any market matures, consumers become more discerning. They demand more, not necessarily in features but in performance. Again, not saying Apple would win the desktop war if it fought today, but things aren't the same. Consumers are a little more discerning, if not any wiser. Consumer satisfaction reports show that Apple leads the pack, by a good distance. People may very well recollect the experience of the PC with parts from multiple vendors and decide it's not what they want with a cellphone. The cellphone biz has more or less operated on the single hardware/software provider up until recently, remember.
Third, Apple now operates a massive boots-on-the-ground retail effort. No other company has this kind of physical presence with consumers. They also have a shining PR image - they are widely loved, if not by the techlier-than-thou slashdot community.
Fourth, they have the halo effect of all those iPod sales. Mac sales are rising fast - which could lead to a reverse halo effect down the line when it comes to iPhones. The point is they have an Apple eco-system, and once you've got one piece, again remembering customer satisfaction surveys, it's all that much easier to go for another piece of the "system".
I think all your points are well taken, but I do think things have changed. Its entirely possible Apple will loose the mobile war as they did the desktop. It's also entirely possible that this isn't as much a zero-sum game as the desktop war was. There are room for multiple successful players (frankly, that makes it better for everyone).
Remember: The real reason Microsoft won the desktop war had to do with business choices, not consumer choices. Business bought cheap commodity computers, users wanted at home what they were used to at work. So far, they are not making the same choice in 2010 - they're given blackberries at work, and choosing to buy either iPhones or Androids for home.
Slashdot Mirror
In other news, the NYT has posted a smattering of job openings for iOS engineers in recent days. Coincidence??
I've subscribed to the NYT for years. I read online. I've read the app. The app is hands-down a better experience than the website (plus you can take it on the subway/airplane/wilderness). I appreciate the sentiment of your comment, but anything that is improperly engineered can fail - regardless if it's an app or a website, that's besides the point. It's not by virtue of it being an "app" that it failed, it's by virtue of an error in the construction. An error in the code of an app will crash the app. An error in the code of a website will crash the website. Whether we choose to call one bit of code an app or another a website, neither is immune from human error.
I think it's important to maintain an open mind when introduced to potential threats and not disregard them based on "gut" reactions. That said, over the past 20 years, we've seen adoption of digital devices grow by orders of magnitude, and over the *exact* same period, witnessed the safest period in the history of aviation in terms of accidents that can't be attributed to something specific (ie, pilot error) -- not to mention overall number of aviation accidents. So yeah, I'm dubious about this anecdotal evidence.
Yeah, by matter of policy Apple bans it. Occasionaly (and by no means always) Apple breaks a jailbroken phone with an update. But the way you phrase it, you'd imply that Apple is smackin' down with lawsuits, cease-n'-desist, and disabling the phones permanently. Now I've known a lot of people to jailbreak their phones, and not one of them has ever EVER ended up with a bricked phone permanently. So, fight, well, yes, but, um, how? Oh "fight" by doing precisely nothing? Cause that's what Apple does in practice to users who jailbreak their phones: absolutely nothing.
With all due respect, this is not a problem with the functionality of the device, rather a problem with the state's ability to peer into things and interpret them in ways it shouldn't. Apple concealing this database would make it slightly more difficult for police to deduce something about you, but it certainly doesn't stop them - the only thing that would stop the "problem" you're describing would be reform of pertinent laws.
For one thing, admissibility in court hasn't even begun to be established. This location information is loose at best, and flat-out-wrong in a lot of cases (apparently I've been to Jamaica a few times in recent years; I must have been under the influence at the time as I've no recollection).
To put it simply, it's reasonable to wish that Apple wouldn't leave personal or private information exposed. It's reasonable to expect that of yourself, as well - one shouldn't leave their phone about, it's full of *personal information*. So in order for any breach to occur, both Apple and end-user must fail at this "reasonable" responsibility.
Now, if Apple were, say, releasing a new Beatles album on iTunes, that might make it a day worth remembering.
iLife 2011: Garageband now featuring auto-rythym correction, auto-pitch correction, and auto-Beatles...
Right. That's like asking "Will the cars of the future run on gas?" to car owners pulled up at an electric-charging-station. It's a fine question, but it says nothing about the broader trend or popularity of the platform.
This is all true and the parallels are many. It's interesting because in many ways Apple is behaving exactly as they did in the mid-80s, when they really began loosing the desktop war.
However, just for the sake of conversation, I'd like to point out a few things that have changed:
First, Steve Jobs. Had he never been given the boot, it's hard to say how things would of gone with the desktop wars. I'm not suggesting that Apple would have dominated, only that we'll never know. Sometimes success is result of many factors - ie, a tightly controlled corporation run by MBAs might not be the same as a tightly controlled company run by SJ. Right combination at the right time. All I'm saying is the man has sufficiently dominated when it comes to every product introduced since his return - including the 100% closed and 75% market penetrated iPod. So that's variable number one.
Second, the market has matured. Personal computers are still a relatively new thing; it's a market segment that is developing - and the mobile computer market is still in a baby-walker. As any market matures, consumers become more discerning. They demand more, not necessarily in features but in performance. Again, not saying Apple would win the desktop war if it fought today, but things aren't the same. Consumers are a little more discerning, if not any wiser. Consumer satisfaction reports show that Apple leads the pack, by a good distance. People may very well recollect the experience of the PC with parts from multiple vendors and decide it's not what they want with a cellphone. The cellphone biz has more or less operated on the single hardware/software provider up until recently, remember.
Third, Apple now operates a massive boots-on-the-ground retail effort. No other company has this kind of physical presence with consumers. They also have a shining PR image - they are widely loved, if not by the techlier-than-thou slashdot community.
Fourth, they have the halo effect of all those iPod sales. Mac sales are rising fast - which could lead to a reverse halo effect down the line when it comes to iPhones. The point is they have an Apple eco-system, and once you've got one piece, again remembering customer satisfaction surveys, it's all that much easier to go for another piece of the "system".
I think all your points are well taken, but I do think things have changed. Its entirely possible Apple will loose the mobile war as they did the desktop. It's also entirely possible that this isn't as much a zero-sum game as the desktop war was. There are room for multiple successful players (frankly, that makes it better for everyone).
Remember: The real reason Microsoft won the desktop war had to do with business choices, not consumer choices. Business bought cheap commodity computers, users wanted at home what they were used to at work. So far, they are not making the same choice in 2010 - they're given blackberries at work, and choosing to buy either iPhones or Androids for home.