It was my understanding that in a capitalist economy that I make a product, and sell it at whatever price I think will make me the most money based upon demand.
Eh? You can sell it whatever price you want in a capitalist economy. But you aren't entitled to make anything - whilst I think some form of copyright is the easiest way of doing things, it's a Government intervention. It's not capitalist, and it's not an entitlement.
Most obviously, how does a new artist get started this way, when he doesn't have any fans yet? Are consumers expected to start pledging to random people on the off-chance that they produce a good result?
Okay, under the current copyright system, how does a new artist get started this way, when he doesn't have any fans yet? Are consumers expected to start paying money to random people on the off-chance that they produce a good result?
(I have no problem with some form of copyright law, albeit it with reform, but I'm curious to your answer here.)
The thing is, I don't have a problem with the basic principle of copyright
Nor do I, but just because the OP (and I) consider the current laws to be unjust, doesn't mean we are arguing that no copyright laws should exist. Note that not even the Pirate Party supports abolition of copyright, so I fear you're barking up a straw man.
The debate shouldn't be polarised between "everything should be free, no copyright laws should exist" and "everything is just fine as it is".
Yeah, but if you have to read literally daily stories about one of those products, no matter how trivial (in this case, a non-news item based on rumour, that even if it was true, tells us nothing other than the bleeding obvious that they are developing new products), you might get annoyed, or simply wonder why such disproportionate advertising was being given to them.
And your comparison is flawed - Firefox, Windows, Google have much bigger market share than the Iphone. The third problem with your argument is that there is virtually no coverage of any of the larger players in the phone market. A better analogy would be getting daily coverage of, I don't know, Opera, whilst never giving any coverage to IE or Firefox.
I can see it now: "New Opera user agent string spotting in field testing!" Is that news, do you think? And do you think it would make sense to have those kind of stories, whilst not having any stories even when a full version of IE or Firefox is officially actually released?
If I had to wait years behind everyone else to get 3G, I'd guess I'd be waiting in line too.
If this new version supports copy and paste finally, I guess people will wait in line for that:)
(I do agree with you though - lots of niche computer platforms have had this behaviour. Apple benefit in the phone market because this behaviour carries over, however unfortunately some people get deluded into thinking that everyone behaves in this fan/geek behaviour, and think Apple are the market leader, despite not being remotely close, or that the Iphone was the only phone to do basic things like Internet access.)
Slashdot Editor #1: "Oh crap, I can't think of anything for today's Iphone story. Maybe post a story about someone doing something, where he just happens to use an Iphone? Nope already done it."
Slashdot Editor #2: "Maybe a story about some random website, and we can say how you can use your Iphone to access a website? Oh wait, we did that one too."
Slashdot Editor #1: "Ah I know - quick, fake up an Iphone new version and put it in my server logs. Instant story!"
But I've got to say - despite the constant spam (Apple send enough unsolicited spam to my inbox), it is interesting to see how people can keep coming up with a story, for every single day. What will it be tomorrow? "Man phones person in another country - uses an Iphone"? "How to get laid, by emailing girls - On Your Iphone"? "Google Maps - which is now available on the Iphone - doesn't show your mom's basement"?
When they finally release a product, then it may be worthy of a story. And I say may - note that most released phones never get any stories on Slashdot, even those from well known companies with far bigger market share (Nokia, Samsung, - well just about all of them, actually). Yet when it comes to Apple, with just a few per cent market share with their previous products, it's now news because some random guy saw something in his logs?
The Daily Iphone Slashvertisement is getting boring.
The discussion was about avoiding pollution, not the validity of global warming data. His response was to someone who labelled someone as a "Hippie", simply for suggesting we should try to reduce pollution.
Nowhere does this imply that anyone who questions the data prefers pollution - it's directed at the person he replied to.
There you go again with that "hype" word. Actually Apple is so respected for their ability to innovate that they benefit strongly from the word-of-mouth you speak of. The iPhone made the cover of Time magazine, as the "best invention of the year", total cost to Apple: Zero. The Steve was named by Fortune magazine as the CEO of the decade. Cost: Zero. Those represent the top of a mountain of free press coverage that Google simply cannot match. So of course their strategy is different; but not by choice.
To be blunt, that's exactly what he means - "hype" may be an emotive term, but this is what he meant. Apple are very good at getting lots of media attention for free, irrespective of how good the product is or how much market share they have. Whether this is Apple's doing, or the RDF just appeared for other reasons, who knows. But it is a fallacy to assume that media coverage must mean that the product is good (come on - this is a phone that advertises "3G" in its name as if that is the best feature it has). By that reasoning, Windows is the best product, and Paris Hilton is an awesomely talented person, right? Just because other platforms, including Android, don't take this approach, doesn't mean they are or will do worse.
They claimed that, three years from now, about 14% of smartphones would run the Android OS, and that about 13% of smartphones would be sold by Apple.
Yeah I think that counts as outselling the Iphone. No one's claiming that the Iphone is going to die, we're just disputing this myth that the Iphone is the best selling phone, and wondering why no other phones get Daily Slashvertisements (or indeed, any coverage whatsoever - when was the last Nokia story?)
7.4 million units sold in Q3 2009. That is roughly twice the number of units sold running Windows Mobile, and dangerously close to the number of BlackBerries sold in the same time frame. Explain your usage of the phrase "not selling much".
Conveniently you ignore Nokia (40% market share), and all the other phones selling more. So yes, Apple are outsold by Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola and RIM, but hey, at least they do better than Windows Mobile! To be honest, debating Apple versus Microsoft and Google in the mobile phone market is rather irrelevant to the big picture right now.
The mobile phone market is hundreds of millions (at least), with Apple are few per cent of it. Now sure, they sell enough to keep them in business, no one's disputing that. But there's this absurd idea that they're the market leader, or the only phone around except for Android and maybe Windows Mobile or Blackberry.
Which is where the smartphone market gets its growth from. And this is exactly why RIM and Nokia _are_ worried. The majority of the customers newly attracted to the smartphone market are being diverted to iPhones. Nokia's smartphone sales figures have been flat for the last three years. That is what we in the biz call "hurting".
There's not really a clear line between "consumer phone" and "smartphone". Indeed, I wouldn't count the Iphone as a smartphone anyway, unless you define it so broadly to include all feature phones too. I'd like to see a source for your claim, though I'm not sure how we could even measure someone who was "newly attracted to the smartphone market". For someone "in the biz", I'd like to see where your claims are coming from.
Nokia have 40% in the smartphone market, and 40% overall, so the definitions don't matter there anyway. And it's less of a worry of having flat sales, especially in a recession, when you're at 40%, and the market leader! Do you have a source for that claim, anyway?
Anyhow, as more companies enter the market, one would expect a market leader to lose share. That's not a bad thing - that's good, as we don't want monopolies. But it is absurd to suggest that this trend will continue so that Apple will overtake Nokia! And there are other new companies who are also eating small amounts away from Nokia, more so than Apple (e.g., RIM). Android ph
And what do "real" developers care when the thing that's providing their living is rejected from the Iphone store? It might only happen sometimes, but it's still a risk, and it seems corporate suicide to depend solely on another company in such a way. Far more likely it seems that companies might right an Iphone "app" in addition - are there any Iphone only software companies out there?
OOI, I'd be curious to know what the share of "real" developers to "hobby" developers is. Given that the most notable apps seem to be things like "display a spinning graphical image Purity Ring app"...
(You can expect to sell about 10,000 times as many copies of an app on iPhone as on Android for example.)
So the Iphone is better than an even smaller and newer platform - conveniently you ignore all the much bigger platforms in the market.
Indeed - it won't crush Apple, because there's nothing to crush in this market. They'll go from having a few per cent market share, to having a few per cent market share.
Conceivably it might lessen the marketing hype - I mean, when every other phone is now running Android (not to mention that Google themselves seem to have some success at getting media attention, whilst Nokia etc are virtually ignored), then this might change things. Also you shouldn't underestimate the knock on effects, in that when you've got a large number of phones on the same system, developers and users are going to be far more likely to target it than they are now, which could mean Apple losing share.
Consider that 15-25 years ago, there were lots more alternatives to Windows. Today they have over 90% market share. Yes, alternatives are not totally gone, but the share of alternative platforms seems much lower than it was.
You are conflating the definition of "open". Here we are discussing the ability to run applications, without corporate approval. You can do that on Linux. You can do that on Windows. Hell, Apple even allow you to do that on OS X, so evidently they don't have a problem with "quality control" there!
And if you want to talk about market share and being open, 95+% of mobile phones let you run "apps" from anywhere, and under 5% of them don't.
Note that the games consoles work like that because the hardware company make money from the games, and in some cases sell the consoles themselves at a lower price accordingly (similarly for printers and ink). So is it the case that developers have to pay lots of money to Apple, and the Iphone is accordingly cheaper than other phones? (I know there's the $99 one off fee, but it's not clear that this is really enough to lower the Iphone price, which is towards the expensive ends of phones anyway - for consoles, the development costs can be in the region of thousands, IIRC.)
And nevermind what works, what would we rather? Do you want a world where portable computers are only available like games consoles, or ones that operate like ordinary computers today?
Up until now, it's all been good for them because of the lack of serious competition. With Android-based phones cranking up, how long will it be before Apple loses their market share due to these shenanigans?
The competition from Nokia (40% market share), Samsung, LG, Motorola and RIM, all of whom have larger market share than Apple, isn't "serious competition"?:) I'm sure Apple are enjoying the revenue from the product - you don't need to be one of the biggest in the market to make money.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you write about the risk of people losing interest in the Iphone, and yet more competition from Android - I would never buy a locked down platform either, and it scares me that such a thing might become normal practice in mobile computing. But don't forget there are plenty of alternatives here already, which people are already buying. It's just that the Iphone gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage (especially here on Slashdot - I mean, people start joking about the Daily Iphone Slashvertisement, but it's stopped being funny... Hell, today as well as the obligatory story, we've enough one that mentions the Iphone, with an additional two more Apple stories on top. When was the last time you saw an story for say Nokia?)
But yes, hopefully open solutions will win in the end. It annoys me that many phones are rather locked down - albeit nowhere near to the extent of the Iphone. That's why I'm glad that netbooks have appeared - maybe not replacements for phones, but they allow mobile computing with all the benefits and openness of ordinary PCs.
It's just sad that Slashdot, which was once a place devoted to open systems, now focuses almost solely on the most closed platfom in this market.
There are rejected Iphone stories?? I thought putting in an obligitary Iphone mention was a guaranteed way to get a front page story, no matter how tenuous the link, or how trivial the story (remember the "You can view this website On Your Iphone" story? Something about parking tickets)...
Until someone provides a real threat to Apple's hardware/software iPhone platform
If having a much bigger market share (e.g., Nokia at 40%, to Apple's few per cent) does not count as a "real threat", I am curious to hear what does?
(And if you have that low opinion of your potential customers - that if they modify their own product to get basic functionality to work, that Just Works on all other phones, then they must be pirates - then I have no sympathy if Apple rejects the "app" that you've spent months or years developing.)
I, personally, doubt the iPhone will "nosedive" as you say. While I agree that their market share will decrease, I think they will remain a leader in their market.
What? They're not a leader in the phone market in the first place[*]. Nokia are the market leader (about 40% market share). A whole load of companies (Samsung, LG, Motorola, RIM) come between them and Apple.
TFA was talking about the Ipod - that's a market leader - but why did readers here on Slashdot suddenly substitute that for the Iphone? Did you just get confused, or have we been so misled by the Daily Slashdot Iphone stories that you think that Apple are the market leader in mobile phones?
[*] Please, don't reply and redefine "market leader" to mean something else, as is a common tactic - we were talking about market share.
Suppose there was a phone that did everything the iPhone did, but didn't have the Apple logo on the outside. It wouldn't be nearly as popular
There already are phones that do everything the Iphone does! I'm confused by your statement - are you seriously unaware of this? And yes, they're more popular (Apple are a few per cent of the market - Nokia are about 40%, Samsung are second IIRC, with lots more in between them and Apple).
If you meant the Ipod, as the article was talking about, you might be right. But the Iphone is a different product in a different market, with nowhere remotely near the same level of success or market share.
It might be true that Apple are making more money than Chinese companies over phones - but there's a lot lot more to the world market than Apple and unnamed Chinese companies. You've got Nokia (Finland), Samsung (South Korea), LG (South Korea), Motorola (USA), Sony Ericsson (Japan/Sweden/UK), RIM (Canada), and probably more that I've forgotten.
Are you suggesting that the only possible jobs are manufacturing, and Walmart/Burger King? Service jobs covers a vast range of possibilities.
I also don't see how this means being unable to afford an Ipod. There are plenty of service jobs that pay more. OTOH, there are plenty of low paid jobs in manufacturing. E.g., how much do you think they're paid for manufacturing Ipods in China, for one?
The reality is the opposite of what you suggest - if manufacturing jobs were here, they'd have to pay more in salaries, so the products would be more expensive, meaning less people could afford them.
If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever, who can afford services?
Why do you think this will happen? Do you have evidence to suggest that higher paid skilled jobs with benefits are more likely to go abroad, than lower paid ones? Remember, even the minimum paid jobs are still higher wages than those in China, so companies still have no incentive to keep them from that point of view.
(Ah, so because I disagree, I'm now an "apoogist".) Sure, sometimes one might blame the system rather than the people, but you still have to show how the Wikipedia policies lead to this situation. What policies lead to the problems being discussed, and how could it be done better? So far, all of the criticisms are not about the policies, they're about bad experiences between other editors - which includes the people making these criticisms! Which rules are you referring too? Note that the only fundamental policies are no original research, neutral point of view, and verifiability. The other policies are decided by, yes, editors - you, and another else who edits.
(And actually, when someone commits a crime, yes I blame the person who commits the crime, not a Government or anyone else for "allowing" it to happen.)
Why did [citation needed] have to become a joke?
It's not a joke. The joke that people make about Wikipedia is precisely the lack of citations - see? If you want a Wikipedia where any edits are allowed, without reverts, without citations, then you're the one responsible for the "Wikipedia" that so many people make jokes about...
Also, what's the problem with your article? At this stage, the article failed to assert notability (you don't have to prove or even show notability, you just have to assert it - this is simply way to filter out people writing any old crap, which they do. As a result, you then made improvements, and the same editor admitted he was wrong, and removed the tag, giving us this article. So what was the problem? It looks like an example of collabaration working, if you ask me.
And don't tell me that you didn't know - when you create an article, it clearly links to Your first article, including "Gather references both to use as source(s) of your information and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter." - if you don't RTFM, it's not the fault of Wikipedia, its rules, or anyone else who edits there. What is your suggestion for improvements? That no articles should be deleted? That references shouldn't be required?
Yes there is a danger of people getting more of one side to argue their case - but there's no "they", anyone can do this. And in my experience, this is far more a problem with newbies trying to preserve an article (e.g., writing an article about their band, webforum, etc, then getting all their friends or members of the forum to flood the page, mistakenly thinking it's a vote) than regular editors who have edited large numbers of articles.
Also, getting more editors to look at an AfD is a good thing, as it means that a decision will be made by a larger number of people. Many unfair deletes in my experience happen more because hardly anyone noticed the AfD.
You don't need "editor friends" - if you feel that you want more people looking at it, then you are free to advertise the AfD - there are places on Wikipedia to do this very thing. And if it turns out that most people looking at it disagree with you, then suck it up. There's no conspiracy - perhaps you should accept that sometimes, not everyone will agree with you, and maybe they'll have a different opinion?
(I've made thousands of edits - but I don't have a single "editor friend". And whilst I know that some of my friends happen to have Wikipedia accounts, I specifically avoid trying to get them to side with me. Indeed, chances are they might disagree.)
OOI, can you cite me an example where the "vote" was successful stacked, by a large number of regular editors?
*sigh* Now we have a mod abusing "overrated" on a post that was never uprated, and thus escaping metamod.
I'll say it again: editors can't delete articles, and articles aren't deleted without warning. Those are facts. The OP was mistaken, I'm afraid.
(Rather than complaining about Wikipedia editors (who can be anyone), perhaps we should complain about the poor state of moderation on Slashdot, especially as mod points now seem to be given out to a subset of people, also making it far easier to abuse...)
So wait, one editor is rude to another editor, and you blame "Wikipedia"?
Perhaps if a troll upsets me here, I should blame "Slashdot".
Wikipedia, a heap of self-serving corporate propaganda and free advertising pretending to be an Encyclopedia
Now we're getting silly - believe it if you like, but your anecdote of a bad experience from another editor does not support this view! I can't see how these two issues are even remotely related? That editor was likely just a random other person (who for all we know, is also criticising "Wikipedia" based on his experience with you!) not anything to do with representing corporation. Hell, I'm sure even people working for Britannica have a bad day sometimes (as with just about any job), but that's not a reason to criticise the end product.
Self-serving? It serves people who want to read it. Corporate propaganda - examples? Free advertising? Well yes, it's free of adverts. And yes, it's an encyclopedia. Squabbles between editors don't change that.
But you were an editor too, along with everyone else giving their experiences here.
Editors can't delete articles, so that is factually wrong. Admins can, but that is not "without warning", it's after a debate when comments are invited from editors (including you), so again that is factually wrong.
There's also Speedy Delete which can be more contentious, but that's still not without warning, and again only Admins can do that. And it's a balance, without it, Wikipedia would be bogged down with thousands of nonsense articles that editors create, as this can be done at a faster rate than they could be deleted through the AfD debate. And if anything, this is another reason why more editors is not necessarily a good thing, as it also means more work generated - the number of editors is meaningless, without telling us what those editors are doing. And indeed, perhaps the editors leaving are the ones you dislike, in which case, you should be glad:)
Slashdot Mirror
A French/British billion (1x10^12) is tera (T) in SI prefixes.
A British billion is 10^9, same as the US billion - it's been that way for decades. Since the BBC is a UK organisation, they'll be using this system.
It was my understanding that in a capitalist economy that I make a product, and sell it at whatever price I think will make me the most money based upon demand.
Eh? You can sell it whatever price you want in a capitalist economy. But you aren't entitled to make anything - whilst I think some form of copyright is the easiest way of doing things, it's a Government intervention. It's not capitalist, and it's not an entitlement.
Most obviously, how does a new artist get started this way, when he doesn't have any fans yet? Are consumers expected to start pledging to random people on the off-chance that they produce a good result?
Okay, under the current copyright system, how does a new artist get started this way, when he doesn't have any fans yet? Are consumers expected to start paying money to random people on the off-chance that they produce a good result?
(I have no problem with some form of copyright law, albeit it with reform, but I'm curious to your answer here.)
The thing is, I don't have a problem with the basic principle of copyright
Nor do I, but just because the OP (and I) consider the current laws to be unjust, doesn't mean we are arguing that no copyright laws should exist. Note that not even the Pirate Party supports abolition of copyright, so I fear you're barking up a straw man.
The debate shouldn't be polarised between "everything should be free, no copyright laws should exist" and "everything is just fine as it is".
Yeah, but if you have to read literally daily stories about one of those products, no matter how trivial (in this case, a non-news item based on rumour, that even if it was true, tells us nothing other than the bleeding obvious that they are developing new products), you might get annoyed, or simply wonder why such disproportionate advertising was being given to them.
And your comparison is flawed - Firefox, Windows, Google have much bigger market share than the Iphone. The third problem with your argument is that there is virtually no coverage of any of the larger players in the phone market. A better analogy would be getting daily coverage of, I don't know, Opera, whilst never giving any coverage to IE or Firefox.
I can see it now: "New Opera user agent string spotting in field testing!" Is that news, do you think? And do you think it would make sense to have those kind of stories, whilst not having any stories even when a full version of IE or Firefox is officially actually released?
If I had to wait years behind everyone else to get 3G, I'd guess I'd be waiting in line too.
If this new version supports copy and paste finally, I guess people will wait in line for that :)
(I do agree with you though - lots of niche computer platforms have had this behaviour. Apple benefit in the phone market because this behaviour carries over, however unfortunately some people get deluded into thinking that everyone behaves in this fan/geek behaviour, and think Apple are the market leader, despite not being remotely close, or that the Iphone was the only phone to do basic things like Internet access.)
Slashdot Editor #1: "Oh crap, I can't think of anything for today's Iphone story. Maybe post a story about someone doing something, where he just happens to use an Iphone? Nope already done it."
Slashdot Editor #2: "Maybe a story about some random website, and we can say how you can use your Iphone to access a website? Oh wait, we did that one too."
Slashdot Editor #1: "Ah I know - quick, fake up an Iphone new version and put it in my server logs. Instant story!"
But I've got to say - despite the constant spam (Apple send enough unsolicited spam to my inbox), it is interesting to see how people can keep coming up with a story, for every single day. What will it be tomorrow? "Man phones person in another country - uses an Iphone"? "How to get laid, by emailing girls - On Your Iphone"? "Google Maps - which is now available on the Iphone - doesn't show your mom's basement"?
Indeed.
When they finally release a product, then it may be worthy of a story. And I say may - note that most released phones never get any stories on Slashdot, even those from well known companies with far bigger market share (Nokia, Samsung, - well just about all of them, actually). Yet when it comes to Apple, with just a few per cent market share with their previous products, it's now news because some random guy saw something in his logs?
The Daily Iphone Slashvertisement is getting boring.
Excellent straw-man!!
The discussion was about avoiding pollution, not the validity of global warming data. His response was to someone who labelled someone as a "Hippie", simply for suggesting we should try to reduce pollution.
Nowhere does this imply that anyone who questions the data prefers pollution - it's directed at the person he replied to.
It didn't take the iPhone anywhere near two and a half years to take a significant chunk of the market from competitors.
I'm sorry, when did this happen? Can you define "significant chunk of the market" in terms of percentage please?
There you go again with that "hype" word. Actually Apple is so respected for their ability to innovate that they benefit strongly from the word-of-mouth you speak of. The iPhone made the cover of Time magazine, as the "best invention of the year", total cost to Apple: Zero. The Steve was named by Fortune magazine as the CEO of the decade. Cost: Zero. Those represent the top of a mountain of free press coverage that Google simply cannot match. So of course their strategy is different; but not by choice.
To be blunt, that's exactly what he means - "hype" may be an emotive term, but this is what he meant. Apple are very good at getting lots of media attention for free, irrespective of how good the product is or how much market share they have. Whether this is Apple's doing, or the RDF just appeared for other reasons, who knows. But it is a fallacy to assume that media coverage must mean that the product is good (come on - this is a phone that advertises "3G" in its name as if that is the best feature it has). By that reasoning, Windows is the best product, and Paris Hilton is an awesomely talented person, right? Just because other platforms, including Android, don't take this approach, doesn't mean they are or will do worse.
They claimed that, three years from now, about 14% of smartphones would run the Android OS, and that about 13% of smartphones would be sold by Apple.
Yeah I think that counts as outselling the Iphone. No one's claiming that the Iphone is going to die, we're just disputing this myth that the Iphone is the best selling phone, and wondering why no other phones get Daily Slashvertisements (or indeed, any coverage whatsoever - when was the last Nokia story?)
7.4 million units sold in Q3 2009. That is roughly twice the number of units sold running Windows Mobile, and dangerously close to the number of BlackBerries sold in the same time frame. Explain your usage of the phrase "not selling much".
Conveniently you ignore Nokia (40% market share), and all the other phones selling more. So yes, Apple are outsold by Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola and RIM, but hey, at least they do better than Windows Mobile! To be honest, debating Apple versus Microsoft and Google in the mobile phone market is rather irrelevant to the big picture right now.
The mobile phone market is hundreds of millions (at least), with Apple are few per cent of it. Now sure, they sell enough to keep them in business, no one's disputing that. But there's this absurd idea that they're the market leader, or the only phone around except for Android and maybe Windows Mobile or Blackberry.
Which is where the smartphone market gets its growth from. And this is exactly why RIM and Nokia _are_ worried. The majority of the customers newly attracted to the smartphone market are being diverted to iPhones. Nokia's smartphone sales figures have been flat for the last three years. That is what we in the biz call "hurting".
There's not really a clear line between "consumer phone" and "smartphone". Indeed, I wouldn't count the Iphone as a smartphone anyway, unless you define it so broadly to include all feature phones too. I'd like to see a source for your claim, though I'm not sure how we could even measure someone who was "newly attracted to the smartphone market". For someone "in the biz", I'd like to see where your claims are coming from.
Nokia have 40% in the smartphone market, and 40% overall, so the definitions don't matter there anyway. And it's less of a worry of having flat sales, especially in a recession, when you're at 40%, and the market leader! Do you have a source for that claim, anyway?
Anyhow, as more companies enter the market, one would expect a market leader to lose share. That's not a bad thing - that's good, as we don't want monopolies. But it is absurd to suggest that this trend will continue so that Apple will overtake Nokia! And there are other new companies who are also eating small amounts away from Nokia, more so than Apple (e.g., RIM). Android ph
And what do "real" developers care when the thing that's providing their living is rejected from the Iphone store? It might only happen sometimes, but it's still a risk, and it seems corporate suicide to depend solely on another company in such a way. Far more likely it seems that companies might right an Iphone "app" in addition - are there any Iphone only software companies out there?
OOI, I'd be curious to know what the share of "real" developers to "hobby" developers is. Given that the most notable apps seem to be things like "display a spinning graphical image Purity Ring app"...
(You can expect to sell about 10,000 times as many copies of an app on iPhone as on Android for example.)
So the Iphone is better than an even smaller and newer platform - conveniently you ignore all the much bigger platforms in the market.
Indeed - it won't crush Apple, because there's nothing to crush in this market. They'll go from having a few per cent market share, to having a few per cent market share.
Conceivably it might lessen the marketing hype - I mean, when every other phone is now running Android (not to mention that Google themselves seem to have some success at getting media attention, whilst Nokia etc are virtually ignored), then this might change things. Also you shouldn't underestimate the knock on effects, in that when you've got a large number of phones on the same system, developers and users are going to be far more likely to target it than they are now, which could mean Apple losing share.
Consider that 15-25 years ago, there were lots more alternatives to Windows. Today they have over 90% market share. Yes, alternatives are not totally gone, but the share of alternative platforms seems much lower than it was.
You are conflating the definition of "open". Here we are discussing the ability to run applications, without corporate approval. You can do that on Linux. You can do that on Windows. Hell, Apple even allow you to do that on OS X, so evidently they don't have a problem with "quality control" there!
And if you want to talk about market share and being open, 95+% of mobile phones let you run "apps" from anywhere, and under 5% of them don't.
Note that the games consoles work like that because the hardware company make money from the games, and in some cases sell the consoles themselves at a lower price accordingly (similarly for printers and ink). So is it the case that developers have to pay lots of money to Apple, and the Iphone is accordingly cheaper than other phones? (I know there's the $99 one off fee, but it's not clear that this is really enough to lower the Iphone price, which is towards the expensive ends of phones anyway - for consoles, the development costs can be in the region of thousands, IIRC.)
And nevermind what works, what would we rather? Do you want a world where portable computers are only available like games consoles, or ones that operate like ordinary computers today?
Up until now, it's all been good for them because of the lack of serious competition. With Android-based phones cranking up, how long will it be before Apple loses their market share due to these shenanigans?
The competition from Nokia (40% market share), Samsung, LG, Motorola and RIM, all of whom have larger market share than Apple, isn't "serious competition"? :) I'm sure Apple are enjoying the revenue from the product - you don't need to be one of the biggest in the market to make money.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you write about the risk of people losing interest in the Iphone, and yet more competition from Android - I would never buy a locked down platform either, and it scares me that such a thing might become normal practice in mobile computing. But don't forget there are plenty of alternatives here already, which people are already buying. It's just that the Iphone gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage (especially here on Slashdot - I mean, people start joking about the Daily Iphone Slashvertisement, but it's stopped being funny... Hell, today as well as the obligatory story, we've enough one that mentions the Iphone, with an additional two more Apple stories on top. When was the last time you saw an story for say Nokia?)
But yes, hopefully open solutions will win in the end. It annoys me that many phones are rather locked down - albeit nowhere near to the extent of the Iphone. That's why I'm glad that netbooks have appeared - maybe not replacements for phones, but they allow mobile computing with all the benefits and openness of ordinary PCs.
It's just sad that Slashdot, which was once a place devoted to open systems, now focuses almost solely on the most closed platfom in this market.
There are rejected Iphone stories?? I thought putting in an obligitary Iphone mention was a guaranteed way to get a front page story, no matter how tenuous the link, or how trivial the story (remember the "You can view this website On Your Iphone" story? Something about parking tickets)...
Until someone provides a real threat to Apple's hardware/software iPhone platform
If having a much bigger market share (e.g., Nokia at 40%, to Apple's few per cent) does not count as a "real threat", I am curious to hear what does?
(And if you have that low opinion of your potential customers - that if they modify their own product to get basic functionality to work, that Just Works on all other phones, then they must be pirates - then I have no sympathy if Apple rejects the "app" that you've spent months or years developing.)
I, personally, doubt the iPhone will "nosedive" as you say. While I agree that their market share will decrease, I think they will remain a leader in their market.
What? They're not a leader in the phone market in the first place[*]. Nokia are the market leader (about 40% market share). A whole load of companies (Samsung, LG, Motorola, RIM) come between them and Apple.
TFA was talking about the Ipod - that's a market leader - but why did readers here on Slashdot suddenly substitute that for the Iphone? Did you just get confused, or have we been so misled by the Daily Slashdot Iphone stories that you think that Apple are the market leader in mobile phones?
[*] Please, don't reply and redefine "market leader" to mean something else, as is a common tactic - we were talking about market share.
Suppose there was a phone that did everything the iPhone did, but didn't have the Apple logo on the outside. It wouldn't be nearly as popular
There already are phones that do everything the Iphone does! I'm confused by your statement - are you seriously unaware of this? And yes, they're more popular (Apple are a few per cent of the market - Nokia are about 40%, Samsung are second IIRC, with lots more in between them and Apple).
If you meant the Ipod, as the article was talking about, you might be right. But the Iphone is a different product in a different market, with nowhere remotely near the same level of success or market share.
It might be true that Apple are making more money than Chinese companies over phones - but there's a lot lot more to the world market than Apple and unnamed Chinese companies. You've got Nokia (Finland), Samsung (South Korea), LG (South Korea), Motorola (USA), Sony Ericsson (Japan/Sweden/UK), RIM (Canada), and probably more that I've forgotten.
Are you suggesting that the only possible jobs are manufacturing, and Walmart/Burger King? Service jobs covers a vast range of possibilities.
I also don't see how this means being unable to afford an Ipod. There are plenty of service jobs that pay more. OTOH, there are plenty of low paid jobs in manufacturing. E.g., how much do you think they're paid for manufacturing Ipods in China, for one?
The reality is the opposite of what you suggest - if manufacturing jobs were here, they'd have to pay more in salaries, so the products would be more expensive, meaning less people could afford them.
If everybody is making minimum wage with no benefits whatsoever, who can afford services?
Why do you think this will happen? Do you have evidence to suggest that higher paid skilled jobs with benefits are more likely to go abroad, than lower paid ones? Remember, even the minimum paid jobs are still higher wages than those in China, so companies still have no incentive to keep them from that point of view.
(Ah, so because I disagree, I'm now an "apoogist".) Sure, sometimes one might blame the system rather than the people, but you still have to show how the Wikipedia policies lead to this situation. What policies lead to the problems being discussed, and how could it be done better? So far, all of the criticisms are not about the policies, they're about bad experiences between other editors - which includes the people making these criticisms! Which rules are you referring too? Note that the only fundamental policies are no original research, neutral point of view, and verifiability. The other policies are decided by, yes, editors - you, and another else who edits.
(And actually, when someone commits a crime, yes I blame the person who commits the crime, not a Government or anyone else for "allowing" it to happen.)
Why did [citation needed] have to become a joke?
It's not a joke. The joke that people make about Wikipedia is precisely the lack of citations - see? If you want a Wikipedia where any edits are allowed, without reverts, without citations, then you're the one responsible for the "Wikipedia" that so many people make jokes about...
Also, what's the problem with your article? At this stage, the article failed to assert notability (you don't have to prove or even show notability, you just have to assert it - this is simply way to filter out people writing any old crap, which they do. As a result, you then made improvements, and the same editor admitted he was wrong, and removed the tag, giving us this article. So what was the problem? It looks like an example of collabaration working, if you ask me.
And don't tell me that you didn't know - when you create an article, it clearly links to Your first article, including "Gather references both to use as source(s) of your information and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter." - if you don't RTFM, it's not the fault of Wikipedia, its rules, or anyone else who edits there. What is your suggestion for improvements? That no articles should be deleted? That references shouldn't be required?
It's not a vote either.
Yes there is a danger of people getting more of one side to argue their case - but there's no "they", anyone can do this. And in my experience, this is far more a problem with newbies trying to preserve an article (e.g., writing an article about their band, webforum, etc, then getting all their friends or members of the forum to flood the page, mistakenly thinking it's a vote) than regular editors who have edited large numbers of articles.
Also, getting more editors to look at an AfD is a good thing, as it means that a decision will be made by a larger number of people. Many unfair deletes in my experience happen more because hardly anyone noticed the AfD.
You don't need "editor friends" - if you feel that you want more people looking at it, then you are free to advertise the AfD - there are places on Wikipedia to do this very thing. And if it turns out that most people looking at it disagree with you, then suck it up. There's no conspiracy - perhaps you should accept that sometimes, not everyone will agree with you, and maybe they'll have a different opinion?
(I've made thousands of edits - but I don't have a single "editor friend". And whilst I know that some of my friends happen to have Wikipedia accounts, I specifically avoid trying to get them to side with me. Indeed, chances are they might disagree.)
OOI, can you cite me an example where the "vote" was successful stacked, by a large number of regular editors?
*sigh* Now we have a mod abusing "overrated" on a post that was never uprated, and thus escaping metamod.
I'll say it again: editors can't delete articles, and articles aren't deleted without warning. Those are facts. The OP was mistaken, I'm afraid.
(Rather than complaining about Wikipedia editors (who can be anyone), perhaps we should complain about the poor state of moderation on Slashdot, especially as mod points now seem to be given out to a subset of people, also making it far easier to abuse...)
So wait, one editor is rude to another editor, and you blame "Wikipedia"?
Perhaps if a troll upsets me here, I should blame "Slashdot".
Wikipedia, a heap of self-serving corporate propaganda and free advertising pretending to be an Encyclopedia
Now we're getting silly - believe it if you like, but your anecdote of a bad experience from another editor does not support this view! I can't see how these two issues are even remotely related? That editor was likely just a random other person (who for all we know, is also criticising "Wikipedia" based on his experience with you!) not anything to do with representing corporation. Hell, I'm sure even people working for Britannica have a bad day sometimes (as with just about any job), but that's not a reason to criticise the end product.
Self-serving? It serves people who want to read it. Corporate propaganda - examples? Free advertising? Well yes, it's free of adverts. And yes, it's an encyclopedia. Squabbles between editors don't change that.
But you were an editor too, along with everyone else giving their experiences here.
Editors can't delete articles, so that is factually wrong. Admins can, but that is not "without warning", it's after a debate when comments are invited from editors (including you), so again that is factually wrong.
There's also Speedy Delete which can be more contentious, but that's still not without warning, and again only Admins can do that. And it's a balance, without it, Wikipedia would be bogged down with thousands of nonsense articles that editors create, as this can be done at a faster rate than they could be deleted through the AfD debate. And if anything, this is another reason why more editors is not necessarily a good thing, as it also means more work generated - the number of editors is meaningless, without telling us what those editors are doing. And indeed, perhaps the editors leaving are the ones you dislike, in which case, you should be glad :)