You clearly did not read the letter from jobs. He does discuss the proprietary nature of iPhone OS. But he also covers why it would be bad for apple users to have middleware design tools become popular -- based on their past experience.
It's also worth noting that you can create amazing, open mobile web apps that work great on iPhones and iPads and many other devices. You can thank apple's open source work on WebKit for a big part of that.
Combined with the performance issues, crashing issues, and lack of a good touch interface for Flash, what argument can really be made in favor of it on mobile devices?
Write it in HTML5, JavaScript and CSS and move on with your life.
That wasn't a rebuttal from ars, it was written by the operations manager of the Free Software Foundation. It helps to frame it properly, since that guy has a definite desire to see a proprietary platform like iPhone fail.
Interesting way to spin Apple's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes. Wow, how could anyone win with this kind of logic?
What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE (iTunes). They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC, in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.
Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said, why don't we eliminate this DRM bullshit, because it doesn't work. One by one, they eventually relented, and now most music stores sell music without DRM. You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.
Yet you're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now "safe" with this iPod monopoly. Does this make any sense? They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library's portability -- and decimated it. Yet, in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something?
But when push comes to shove, I'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed & proprietary.
Is that why they have developed the best mobile browser to date? Pushing HTML5 instead of Flash? Contributing to webkit?
The future is going to continue to be dominated by the web. Apple provides a really good web platform in their products.
You can write any web application you want, and get people on iPhone and iPad to use it. HTML5 has great support in Safari.
You can write any full application you want for the Mac platform, using one of the best development environments in Xcode.
You can write any application you want for the iPhone and iPad, as well, using the exact same environment. The only question is whether or not you're going to be able to distribute it in the App Store. Apple has decided to tightly control that marketplace. Some of their reasoning is valid -- security issues, quality control issues, etc. Some of it has to do with branding, things they don't want to be associated with. Some of it has to do with appealing to the widest audience. And yes, some of it has to do with business.
What I would like to see Apple do, and I think they eventually will be forced by the marketplace to do this -- is to allow apps to be installed from sources outside the App Store. Google Android will push them to do this, if for no other reason than Apple can answer all critics.
Invariably, Apple tends to solve criticisms eventually, before they erode mindshare.
Consider the history of iPhone:
- Criticism #1: What, no native apps, only web apps? Solved in OS 2.0.
- Criticism #2: What, no copy and paste? Solved in OS 3.0.
- Criticisms #3 and #4. Now Android is picking up steam. What are the primary advantages people name for Android? Multi-tasking and an open marketplace.
Well, Apple is rumored to be addressing multi-tasking in OS 4.0. I'm not one of those people that berates them for not having it from the beginning, I think they tackled major problems that plagued earlier "smartphones," i.e. overly complex process management, and battery use issues. As hardware evolves, battery life is less of a problem, and I am confident Apple can solve user interface challenges.
If they did address multi-tasking and application installation, what would all of you guys bitch about? Oh, right. AT&T.
I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch. Most people, myself included, use Google Mail for.....
Wow, you've queried other Gmail users? Please publish your findings!
With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc. All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond..
Get off your lawn, while we're at it, Mr. Annoying?
TURN IT OFF.
So you don't want to use it, jesus who gives a shit? Just turn it off.
In your opinion, the "Google Mail team" is losing touch by offering a new feature that lets people connect with each other more, in a way very similar to two other extremely popular ways to do the same... yeah, you're right, they're really out there in left field! What were those crazy loons thinking!
Additionally, whatever happened with Wave? Wasn't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this "revolutionized email?"
Oh, wait a second, suddenly you're interested in cutting edge ways to communicate with people? Weren't you just telling us one paragraph ago that Google Mail people are totally out of touch because you and every person you surveyed uses Gmail in one specific way and isn't interested in anything new? But now you're asking about Google Wave?
Google Wave is totally different from this product. They're still beta testing it. For someone that thinks like you do, imagine Google Wave as Google Docs, if the Google Docs team suddenly lost all touch with reality, and decided to add a new feature that let people communicate with each other in new ways.
Reading the forums alot of the apple fans don't seem to like it.
Have you considered that people that like something tend not to storm the web and write about it? Of course everyone bitching on the forums hates it... Does that mean it won't sell really well?
I personally love it. I'm a programmer, I work on Windows mostly, but Macs more and more. All I've wanted a tablet for is surfing the web, reading books, and things like that. I'm not trying to do EVERYTHING on this device. I think Apple has reached a very good balance. (I would have liked a front-facing camera for video chat, but other than that I like it.)
Tens of millions of people play farmville or watch hulu and you can't do any of that on the ipad.
Uh huh. Until Hulu switches to HTML5 video embeds and Farmville writes their app in a standard format, like JavaScript + HTML5 canvas.
Ha, where is the time? Oh, I dunno, while I'm sleeping? Which I luckily do every night.
You'd have to recharge your phone every day also, if it actually did everything the iPhone does.
One of the "features" I loathe about people mocking the iPhone is that their arguments are so inane, and in most cases they've never bothered to try the iPhone, because of their preconceived notions about Apple products, or those of us too "stupid" to want to use a Linux-based device.
It gets all the hype because the other phones you mention don't have the capabilities of the iPhone, the nice design hardware and software wise, and for investors -- the huge margins.
I have a copy of Windows Vista running in a VM in Parallels. I bought the Windows 7 Ultimate upgrade, but decided I want to do a clean install.
To do a clean install from a clean VM (or hard drive), you have to perform a hack. You can't just install 7 and show it your Vista CD to prove you are eligible. Unbelievable!
Contrast this with my recent Mac upgrade experience. I bought Snow Leopard ($29, 1/10th the price of W7), and was able to perform a clean install, without even having to enter a fucking key.
Funny how most of the time, an unregulated market increases the cost of items taht should be dirt-cheap, until they're an unaffordable luxury to most people.
This is demonstrably ludicrous. A free market necessarily pushes the prices of abundant items lower and lower through competition. One example, check the price of hard drive storage now. Compare it through the years.
And how the quality of the products and services doesn't matter, so long as you can dupe or force people into buying it.
Well, it's a free market. If you're stupid enough to be duped, yeah that'll happen. It also provides you the opportunity for a smart shopper to get a great value.
In fact, non-free software (e.g., Windows and other Microsoft wares) is a great example of this. Is Office 7 worth $400? Nope, but because it's a free market, the price gets inflated to this point.
Just because YOU don't value an office suite at this price doesn't mean the price is inflated. People are buying it at this price at a level Microsoft is comfortable with. You also have the choice of several free office suites, and a cheaper office suite from Apple. So why do you care that office is expensive? Is it because you find that it really is better than the other office suites I mentioned? If so, perhaps this is why it's cost is higher?
If people stopped buying it at that price, Microsoft would lower the price.
Is Vista a good product? Nope, but because the industry is regulated only by those in control of it (i.e. Microsoft) hundreds of thousands of people were essentially forced to buy it anyway.
Forced to buy it? Ha. I bought Snow Leopard for $29. Many people bought Linux for $0.
Remember, the "free market" is not free. It is manipulated like a puppet by those who hold the reins, those who do not care about your wellbeing or options in life.
Ahh, really. So I must be mistaken when I see Google in control of search on the internet, having only been around a decade or so. They came out of nowhere with great technology, and through capitalism, were able to best giants at the time like Microsoft, Yahoo, AltaVista, et. al.
Apple was started out of a garage. HP was started out of a garage. YOU can start your own company today, and build it up to greatness, if you can execute well and have something people want. That is the power of capitalism.
Maybe if you didn't get your libertarian news/opinion pieces from places that are anti-libertarian, you might realize that most of us are reasonable. Just like most people in each political spectrum are reasonable.
This just shows the utter hypocrisy of the libertarians.
Thank you for lumping all of us together.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm a libertarian, and I have no problem with free software, or the free software movement.
As a libertarian, I also feel it's entirely possible for someone to create a non-free software that is so much better than the equivalent free software, that it makes people want to pay for it.
In either case, as a libertarian, I would fight for your right to use and create any software you want.
As for all your commentary on libertarians wanting to exploit this or that... are you even aware of what a libertarian is? We are in favor of individual freedom and liberty. Exploiting other people is the exact opposite of what a libertarian stands for.
These broad statements... No... Apple could not buy Nokia. They may offer their 30 billion in cash, but Nokia would simply turn it down.
When you're a public company, there's no such thing as turning it down. It becomes something the shareholders get involved with.
But obviously all of this is a joke. Apple has no desire to buy Nokia. Apple already has plenty of talented engineers. They have better hardware designers. They have better software designers.
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly did not read the letter from jobs. He does discuss the proprietary nature of iPhone OS. But he also covers why it would be bad for apple users to have middleware design tools become popular -- based on their past experience.
It's also worth noting that you can create amazing, open mobile web apps that work great on iPhones and iPads and many other devices. You can thank apple's open source work on WebKit for a big part of that.
Combined with the performance issues, crashing issues, and lack of a good touch interface for Flash, what argument can really be made in favor of it on mobile devices?
Write it in HTML5, JavaScript and CSS and move on with your life.
That wasn't a rebuttal from ars, it was written by the operations manager of the Free Software Foundation. It helps to frame it properly, since that guy has a definite desire to see a proprietary platform like iPhone fail.
Nah, FairTax would be a better choice.
After all, companies don't ever pay taxes. You do. Through higher prices for goods, fewer jobs at lower pay, and fewer dividends to shareholders.
How exactly do you think companies have money to pay taxes, anyway?
Interesting way to spin Apple's accomplishment... that it was somehow evil to unlock iTunes. Wow, how could anyone win with this kind of logic?
What actually happened was that Apple dominated the music business because of the popularity of their HARDWARE and the way it worked seamlessly with their SOFTWARE (iTunes). They made a music store that SELLS MUSIC, in an environment where it was almost as easy to anonymously steal the same stuff.
Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the music industry where he essentially said, why don't we eliminate this DRM bullshit, because it doesn't work. One by one, they eventually relented, and now most music stores sell music without DRM. You can now buy music from iTunes that plays on any modern music device.
Yet you're convinced Apple only did this because they somehow are now "safe" with this iPod monopoly. Does this make any sense? They removed one factor that might lock someone into their iPod the most -- their music library's portability -- and decimated it. Yet, in your mind this was just a crock of shit or something?
Wow.
Unfortunately, chris.travers@GMAIL.COM, your Google boycott rings a tad hollow.
But when push comes to shove, I'm growing more convinced with the iPhone/iPad they really do see the future as being closed & proprietary.
Is that why they have developed the best mobile browser to date? Pushing HTML5 instead of Flash? Contributing to webkit?
The future is going to continue to be dominated by the web. Apple provides a really good web platform in their products.
You can write any web application you want, and get people on iPhone and iPad to use it. HTML5 has great support in Safari.
You can write any full application you want for the Mac platform, using one of the best development environments in Xcode.
You can write any application you want for the iPhone and iPad, as well, using the exact same environment. The only question is whether or not you're going to be able to distribute it in the App Store. Apple has decided to tightly control that marketplace. Some of their reasoning is valid -- security issues, quality control issues, etc. Some of it has to do with branding, things they don't want to be associated with. Some of it has to do with appealing to the widest audience. And yes, some of it has to do with business.
What I would like to see Apple do, and I think they eventually will be forced by the marketplace to do this -- is to allow apps to be installed from sources outside the App Store. Google Android will push them to do this, if for no other reason than Apple can answer all critics.
Invariably, Apple tends to solve criticisms eventually, before they erode mindshare.
Consider the history of iPhone:
- Criticism #1: What, no native apps, only web apps? Solved in OS 2.0.
- Criticism #2: What, no copy and paste? Solved in OS 3.0.
- Criticisms #3 and #4. Now Android is picking up steam. What are the primary advantages people name for Android? Multi-tasking and an open marketplace.
Well, Apple is rumored to be addressing multi-tasking in OS 4.0. I'm not one of those people that berates them for not having it from the beginning, I think they tackled major problems that plagued earlier "smartphones," i.e. overly complex process management, and battery use issues. As hardware evolves, battery life is less of a problem, and I am confident Apple can solve user interface challenges.
If they did address multi-tasking and application installation, what would all of you guys bitch about? Oh, right. AT&T.
Disclaimer: I own stock in Apple and Google.
I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch. Most people, myself included, use Google Mail for.....
Wow, you've queried other Gmail users? Please publish your findings!
With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc. All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond..
Get off your lawn, while we're at it, Mr. Annoying?
TURN IT OFF.
So you don't want to use it, jesus who gives a shit? Just turn it off.
In your opinion, the "Google Mail team" is losing touch by offering a new feature that lets people connect with each other more, in a way very similar to two other extremely popular ways to do the same... yeah, you're right, they're really out there in left field! What were those crazy loons thinking!
Additionally, whatever happened with Wave? Wasn't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this "revolutionized email?"
Oh, wait a second, suddenly you're interested in cutting edge ways to communicate with people? Weren't you just telling us one paragraph ago that Google Mail people are totally out of touch because you and every person you surveyed uses Gmail in one specific way and isn't interested in anything new? But now you're asking about Google Wave?
Google Wave is totally different from this product. They're still beta testing it. For someone that thinks like you do, imagine Google Wave as Google Docs, if the Google Docs team suddenly lost all touch with reality, and decided to add a new feature that let people communicate with each other in new ways.
Cry me a river!
When will you be ditching your TV?
Reading the forums alot of the apple fans don't seem to like it.
Have you considered that people that like something tend not to storm the web and write about it? Of course everyone bitching on the forums hates it... Does that mean it won't sell really well?
I personally love it. I'm a programmer, I work on Windows mostly, but Macs more and more. All I've wanted a tablet for is surfing the web, reading books, and things like that. I'm not trying to do EVERYTHING on this device. I think Apple has reached a very good balance. (I would have liked a front-facing camera for video chat, but other than that I like it.)
Tens of millions of people play farmville or watch hulu and you can't do any of that on the ipad.
Uh huh. Until Hulu switches to HTML5 video embeds and Farmville writes their app in a standard format, like JavaScript + HTML5 canvas.
Fuck Flash.
The Apple ][ was most definitely a tinkerer's machine.
No shit.
This entire article is lame. Did anyone consider that the market for computers back then was ... a bunch of geeks that liked tinkering?
Computers are now ubiquitous. If you don't want to tinker, buy a Mac. If you want to tinker, buy something else.
End of story...
The difference is that this is a fucking media consuming device, not a desktop computer.
Wow, you gave 3D an entire movie experience before deciding it's fate?
And you're skipping blu-ray... uh huh. I'll come back to you in a year when you can't even find a non-bluray DVD player on the market any more.
Ha, where is the time? Oh, I dunno, while I'm sleeping? Which I luckily do every night.
You'd have to recharge your phone every day also, if it actually did everything the iPhone does.
One of the "features" I loathe about people mocking the iPhone is that their arguments are so inane, and in most cases they've never bothered to try the iPhone, because of their preconceived notions about Apple products, or those of us too "stupid" to want to use a Linux-based device.
Oh, so you hated thin clients 25 years ago, and now you could never use one of those, right?
Who would ever want to use a small device that has no hard drive, downloads applications from the cloud, and is web-centric?
Things change.
Anything that is internet-connected and useful poses a threat to your privacy. Period.
I am willing to accept that trade-off, especially since 95% of the privacy stories on YRO are overblown.
Oh no, the power company can determine my peak power usage. They can determine that I leave in the morning and get home at night.
In exchange, the smart grid promises some big benefits. As usual, a trade-off.
Anti-trust? Precisely what monopoly does Apple hold? (Other than a monopoly on nice design. :)
It gets all the hype because the other phones you mention don't have the capabilities of the iPhone, the nice design hardware and software wise, and for investors -- the huge margins.
Exactly. The Internet detects this treaty as damage, and routes around it.
Now, a nuclear bomb on the other hand... goodbye Internet.
I have a copy of Windows Vista running in a VM in Parallels. I bought the Windows 7 Ultimate upgrade, but decided I want to do a clean install.
To do a clean install from a clean VM (or hard drive), you have to perform a hack. You can't just install 7 and show it your Vista CD to prove you are eligible. Unbelievable!
Contrast this with my recent Mac upgrade experience. I bought Snow Leopard ($29, 1/10th the price of W7), and was able to perform a clean install, without even having to enter a fucking key.
Funny how most of the time, an unregulated market increases the cost of items taht should be dirt-cheap, until they're an unaffordable luxury to most people.
This is demonstrably ludicrous. A free market necessarily pushes the prices of abundant items lower and lower through competition. One example, check the price of hard drive storage now. Compare it through the years.
And how the quality of the products and services doesn't matter, so long as you can dupe or force people into buying it.
Well, it's a free market. If you're stupid enough to be duped, yeah that'll happen. It also provides you the opportunity for a smart shopper to get a great value.
In fact, non-free software (e.g., Windows and other Microsoft wares) is a great example of this. Is Office 7 worth $400? Nope, but because it's a free market, the price gets inflated to this point.
Just because YOU don't value an office suite at this price doesn't mean the price is inflated. People are buying it at this price at a level Microsoft is comfortable with. You also have the choice of several free office suites, and a cheaper office suite from Apple. So why do you care that office is expensive? Is it because you find that it really is better than the other office suites I mentioned? If so, perhaps this is why it's cost is higher?
If people stopped buying it at that price, Microsoft would lower the price.
Is Vista a good product? Nope, but because the industry is regulated only by those in control of it (i.e. Microsoft) hundreds of thousands of people were essentially forced to buy it anyway.
Forced to buy it? Ha. I bought Snow Leopard for $29. Many people bought Linux for $0.
Remember, the "free market" is not free. It is manipulated like a puppet by those who hold the reins, those who do not care about your wellbeing or options in life.
Ahh, really. So I must be mistaken when I see Google in control of search on the internet, having only been around a decade or so. They came out of nowhere with great technology, and through capitalism, were able to best giants at the time like Microsoft, Yahoo, AltaVista, et. al.
Apple was started out of a garage. HP was started out of a garage. YOU can start your own company today, and build it up to greatness, if you can execute well and have something people want. That is the power of capitalism.
Grow up.
Maybe if you didn't get your libertarian news/opinion pieces from places that are anti-libertarian, you might realize that most of us are reasonable. Just like most people in each political spectrum are reasonable.
This just shows the utter hypocrisy of the libertarians.
Thank you for lumping all of us together.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm a libertarian, and I have no problem with free software, or the free software movement.
As a libertarian, I also feel it's entirely possible for someone to create a non-free software that is so much better than the equivalent free software, that it makes people want to pay for it.
In either case, as a libertarian, I would fight for your right to use and create any software you want.
As for all your commentary on libertarians wanting to exploit this or that... are you even aware of what a libertarian is? We are in favor of individual freedom and liberty. Exploiting other people is the exact opposite of what a libertarian stands for.
These broad statements... No... Apple could not buy Nokia. They may offer their 30 billion in cash, but Nokia would simply turn it down.
When you're a public company, there's no such thing as turning it down. It becomes something the shareholders get involved with.
But obviously all of this is a joke. Apple has no desire to buy Nokia. Apple already has plenty of talented engineers. They have better hardware designers. They have better software designers.
Profitable?
When you lose hundreds of millions of euros in a single quarter, we don't call that profitable.
Nokia is in a race to the bottom. Like the girl selling /free/ lemonade, they're going to "make it up on volume."
Let them have the marketshare, Apple is taking the mindshare, and making billions doing it.
I think it's ok to state the reason Nokia is giving for suing. They aren't saying they're right.