...because the fact that they have sufficient influence to push open standards indicates that they also have the power to do a lot of hypothetical bad things? like (I don't know) mass killing of puppies?
Is the solution to make sure that no entity ever has influence?
By your definition, things which are also bad:
1. Every company in the world. 2. every popular organization ever in the history of mankind ever. 3. all forms of functional government. 4. all forms of media, including the internet and the printing press. 5. anyone who has ever been modded +5
Your argument is that Apple may be doing the right thing, but they are probably doing it for the wrong reasons and who knows what they've got planned once they get us all hooked on a free internet based on open standards?
I mean seriously shut the fuck up and stop existing.
Most like that they don't have to run anti-virus/malware programs on them.
It's only the belligerent technorati who insist that everyone should either acquire l33t expertise on every device they use, or be afraid of those devices and forced to enlist the aid of some smug expert.
I'm still not able to run arbitrary code on the processor in my microwave or my refrigerator. Why can't I manually deploy the airbag in my car? How come there's no flash client for my wristwatch.
Apple is small potatoes--this goes all the way to the top.
I click on the little App Store icon (the one that always has a red circle with some number in it) and then put in "Angry Birds Bonus Levels" on the search thingy and it doesn't find it.
Who do I call to complain about that, iTunes or Apple?
1. There is no such thing as "impossible to break" 2. Not impossible != Easy
---
Also, take a moment to reflect on your argument at this point, which is that Apple App control isn't successful at curbing viruses/malware/buggy apps while at the same time complaining that they make it hard to run the apps you want.
> - "Given the choice between an open system and a walled garden, I myself would choose the open one"
Then what is the argument? Nobody in Apple-land is arguing that Android shouldn't exist or should be just as locked down as Apple. But most in the anti-Apple camp argue that iPhone's should be just as unprotected as Androids are. Do you see the asymmetry in this argument?
> - "I don't think most consumers understand the > tradeoffs they're making when they choose a > walled garden"
This is the one that bothers me the most because it is so condescending. First of all, I really doubt that there is anything you know about these tradeoffs that I don't know, and I chose willingly to buy an iPhone--so it is silly to claim that choosing an iPhone is a choice only an ignorant one would make.
Secondly, I am annoyed to death at how the technical community consistently undervalues ease-of-use and they look down their noses at anybody who doesn't want to either (a) spend a lot of time becoming an expert in the device and maintaining it, or (b) be scared of their device and seek the help of some smug expert.
It is perfectly reasonable for those people to make a simple, blunt choice that limits the danger they can accidentally get themselves.
> It won't change the fact that it's stupid in the iPhone case, because the supposed "security" could > be achieved by requiring users to insert a security code to enable "advanced" features, like > out of market installation.
But wouldn't that require extra effort on the part of the manufacturer? Implementing the security code and the alternate path for loading insecure apps?
The crux of your point is that if the manufacturer goes to any additional effort at all to limit the potential utility of a device, then that makes the device itself amoral and anyone who purchases it a sucker.
Anyone who has ever brought a product to market can tell you that it is far, far cheaper on a manufacturer to artificially limit the utility of a product than it is to put up with the endless issues caused by allowing their users to customize it. Whatever small amount of effort they put into locking down an iPhone is tiny compared to the savings on customer support calls from having to deal with the consequences of tinkered-with phones. So it is hard to argue that this doesn't make business sense to Apple based purely on that.
When you factor in the potential damage to their brand when publicity abounds about buggy sw, malware, and viruses on these defanged iPhones, then it is overwhelmingly the case that it makes more financial sense for Apple to make it hard to tinker with their phones. Remember Apple is trying to separate themselves in a crowded market, this is how they do it.
The remaining question is whether iPhone owners are naive sheep for purchasing our crippled phones. If it does everything I want it to do, and it is worth the price to me, then how does that make me naive?
Most of those are general purpose computers--owned by individual shop owners or whatever. Yet the manufacturer has prevented the owner from running whatever software they want on it. Are those immoral?
How about this? Airbags are designed to be deployed, but yet GM doesn't provide a button for me to deploy it manually. Shouldn't I have that option? maybe right next the rear defrost button?
If your point is that people shouldn't be allowed (or should at least be very ashamed) to purchase intentionally crippled goods because they perceive some safety in the 'crippling'--then this is going to be a long, long conversation with hundreds of counterexamples and you will end up looking stupid.
It's your microwave, you own the hardware. It has a processor in it and it can run software--but yet you are prevented from running arbitrary code on it just as was intended by our founding fathers.
So Google offers you the choice of whether to install a potentially malicious app (which opens up the possibility that you will accidentally install it, or someone will install it on your phone without your knowledge).
Apple offers you this choice "if you buy one of our phones, then we'll police potentially malicious apps for you, so you don't have to worry about this particular vector of attack" (this choice also walls off access to apps which Apple doesn't like). If you don't want this, then there are less restricted phones out there.
The anti-Apple world says, more or less, that people should not be permitted Choice B but they should be permitted Choice A. The pro-Apple world says that people should be permitted both choices. In both cases, a user is making an informed decision about the capabilities they want on their phone, just at different levels of granularity. Yet, somehow, the anti-Apple world is the one that wraps themselves in the freedom flag.
Each developer decides whether to distribute their source and how much to charge for their app (there are thousands of free apps). So what is your point?
Slashdot Mirror
couldn't resist.
"Whirlpool isn't bent on slowly taking over a formerly thriving third-party appliance firmware market"
Is that what the Whirlpool CEO told you to say?
Fucking whirlpool fanboy sheep.
...because the fact that they have sufficient influence to push open standards indicates that they also have the power to do a lot of hypothetical bad things? like (I don't know) mass killing of puppies?
Is the solution to make sure that no entity ever has influence?
By your definition, things which are also bad:
1. Every company in the world.
2. every popular organization ever in the history of mankind ever.
3. all forms of functional government.
4. all forms of media, including the internet and the printing press.
5. anyone who has ever been modded +5
Your argument is that Apple may be doing the right thing, but they are probably doing it for the wrong reasons and who knows what they've got planned once they get us all hooked on a free internet based on open standards?
I mean seriously shut the fuck up and stop existing.
Most like that they don't have to run anti-virus/malware programs on them.
It's only the belligerent technorati who insist that everyone should either acquire l33t expertise on every device they use, or be afraid of those devices and forced to enlist the aid of some smug expert.
I'm still not able to run arbitrary code on the processor in my microwave or my refrigerator. Why can't I manually deploy the airbag in my car? How come there's no flash client for my wristwatch.
Apple is small potatoes--this goes all the way to the top.
Those bastards.
How do I point my iphone at the Google store? isn't Google in safari? I really want to try the angry birds bonus level.
before they install their apps.
I click on the little App Store icon (the one that always has a red circle with some number in it) and then put in "Angry Birds Bonus Levels" on the search thingy and it doesn't find it.
Who do I call to complain about that, iTunes or Apple?
What is Android? is that a new game for iphones?
But the interface looks fresh and nice, and I think the advertising spin is innovative (get in--get out---get back to your life).
or something?
and that's something you generally want to keep an eye one.
That'll fix that deficit spending, just like the last time the GOP ran the government.
I will give you a free lesson:
1. There is no such thing as "impossible to break"
2. Not impossible != Easy
---
Also, take a moment to reflect on your argument at this point, which is that Apple App control isn't successful at curbing viruses/malware/buggy apps while at the same time complaining that they make it hard to run the apps you want.
> - "Given the choice between an open system and a walled garden, I myself would choose the open one"
Then what is the argument? Nobody in Apple-land is arguing that Android shouldn't exist or should be just as locked down as Apple. But most in the anti-Apple camp argue that iPhone's should be just as unprotected as Androids are. Do you see the asymmetry in this argument?
> - "I don't think most consumers understand the
> tradeoffs they're making when they choose a
> walled garden"
This is the one that bothers me the most because it is so condescending. First of all, I really doubt that there is anything you know about these tradeoffs that I don't know, and I chose willingly to buy an iPhone--so it is silly to claim that choosing an iPhone is a choice only an ignorant one would make.
Secondly, I am annoyed to death at how the technical community consistently undervalues ease-of-use and they look down their noses at anybody who doesn't want to either (a) spend a lot of time becoming an expert in the device and maintaining it, or (b) be scared of their device and seek the help of some smug expert.
It is perfectly reasonable for those people to make a simple, blunt choice that limits the danger they can accidentally get themselves.
> It won't change the fact that it's stupid in the iPhone case, because the supposed "security" could
> be achieved by requiring users to insert a security code to enable "advanced" features, like
> out of market installation.
But wouldn't that require extra effort on the part of the manufacturer? Implementing the security code and the alternate path for loading insecure apps?
The crux of your point is that if the manufacturer goes to any additional effort at all to limit the potential utility of a device, then that makes the device itself amoral and anyone who purchases it a sucker.
Anyone who has ever brought a product to market can tell you that it is far, far cheaper on a manufacturer to artificially limit the utility of a product than it is to put up with the endless issues caused by allowing their users to customize it. Whatever small amount of effort they put into locking down an iPhone is tiny compared to the savings on customer support calls from having to deal with the consequences of tinkered-with phones. So it is hard to argue that this doesn't make business sense to Apple based purely on that.
When you factor in the potential damage to their brand when publicity abounds about buggy sw, malware, and viruses on these defanged iPhones, then it is overwhelmingly the case that it makes more financial sense for Apple to make it hard to tinker with their phones. Remember Apple is trying to separate themselves in a crowded market, this is how they do it.
The remaining question is whether iPhone owners are naive sheep for purchasing our crippled phones. If it does everything I want it to do, and it is worth the price to me, then how does that make me naive?
Most of those are general purpose computers--owned by individual shop owners or whatever. Yet the manufacturer has prevented the owner from running whatever software they want on it. Are those immoral?
How about this? Airbags are designed to be deployed, but yet GM doesn't provide a button for me to deploy it manually. Shouldn't I have that option? maybe right next the rear defrost button?
If your point is that people shouldn't be allowed (or should at least be very ashamed) to purchase intentionally crippled goods because they perceive some safety in the 'crippling'--then this is going to be a long, long conversation with hundreds of counterexamples and you will end up looking stupid.
It's your microwave, you own the hardware. It has a processor in it and it can run software--but yet you are prevented from running arbitrary code on it just as was intended by our founding fathers.
Is that your point?
So Google offers you the choice of whether to install a potentially malicious app (which opens up the possibility that you will accidentally install it, or someone will install it on your phone without your knowledge).
Apple offers you this choice "if you buy one of our phones, then we'll police potentially malicious apps for you, so you don't have to worry about this particular vector of attack" (this choice also walls off access to apps which Apple doesn't like). If you don't want this, then there are less restricted phones out there.
The anti-Apple world says, more or less, that people should not be permitted Choice B but they should be permitted Choice A. The pro-Apple world says that people should be permitted both choices. In both cases, a user is making an informed decision about the capabilities they want on their phone, just at different levels of granularity. Yet, somehow, the anti-Apple world is the one that wraps themselves in the freedom flag.
Enjoy.
If so--then Google is making it 'hard' to install from a store other than their own. If not, then how does this yield any protection?
Each developer decides whether to distribute their source and how much to charge for their app (there are thousands of free apps). So what is your point?
...obviously?