No, It would be like Sony owing an advertising business and Samsung owning an advertising business. Sony allows all advertising businesses to get viewing habits and feature use info from the TV, except Samsung's since they could use that information in producing TVs your customers like.
Did you watch teh WWDC Keynote? Specifically the demo of the Nissan iAd? Lets look at how I could get analytics without "stealing" them from the device: - Ad is displayed from a server (# of ads displayed) - Webpage is accessed via ad (clicks) - IP Address accessing servers (geo-location) - Time of Day - Date - A webform for more information (Demoed in the Nissan iAd) could get any information a user is willing to provide - A contest registration (again demoed in the Nissan iAd) - A coupon, can track the redemption and store redeemed at. There is a lot of data there and none of it pulled from the iPhone. I am not an advertiser, I am sure people smarter than me can come up with a lot more. The issue is AdMob will have to involve the user in getting their private data. I have no problem with that.
Again this a poor analogy. Office was an application. The private API's were part of Windows. Office was not playing by the same rules as other applications. The private API's in iOS are used by the operating system. iTunes, iPod, Phone, Mail, and Safari are part of the OS. Apple does not write a lot of Apps for the App Store. Now, on the few they do, if they used the private API's and not the public ones there would be issues. This is what Microsoft did. So you would need to look at Keynote, iMovie, Remote, and Keynote Remote to see if they use private APIs, and thus an unfair advantage. The App store itself is no different than Sony or Microsoft requiring signed code for Playstation and Xbox.
Because I they learned with the Fring iPad discovery, analytics could provide their mobile phone competitors with information that helps them compete with Apple/iPhone. Things like: - New prototype devices/features - How much time iPhone users spend doing X, Y, and Z - Where iPhone users use their phones the most - What features iPhone users like the most This can help Google/Microsoft replicate the most compelling features and tailor the devices to the usage of iPhone customers. Why should Apple allow this information to go to a competitor?
It's more complicated than that. AdMob is a competitor of iAds. AdMob would have 100% of the rights to analytics if AdMob was solely AdMob. Problem is AdMob is Google. Google makes Android. Android is a competitor of iPhone, not iAds. Problem is, analytics gathered by AdMob off iPhones could give advantages to Android. This is not about being anti-competitive with AdMob. It is about protecting iPhone development from Android developers.
They have analytics they can collect without stealing them from the device: - When an ad is displayed from a server - When a page is reached from an ad - A user submitted form for additional info (just like the iAd demoed at WWDC) - Contest registrations (just like the iAd demoed at WWDC)
They aren't out of a job, they just have to think of ways to improve their service.
I could understand if Apple was rejecting developers because they also release on other platforms. THAT is what Microsoft was doing. Instead they are rejecting certain applications based on the application. If these apps are available on other platforms and users want them, then Apple shouldn't be getting all that market share. I can't demand Sony support playing XBOX 360 games on a PS3.
Not if the Mozilla team represents 100% of the authors. If it does, they are within their rights to dual license their code in a non GPL form. This is why it will be interesting to see who submitted the GNU Go port.
I wonder how much knowledge the FSF has of the situation. Are they acting on their own, or is one of the authors involved? Who submitted the App? If it was the "authors" they are in their right to dual license their code. There can be a GPL and non-GPL version. The non-GPL version doesn't suddenly become GPLed. Based on their letter, this seems like an evangelical rant against Apple.
"We believe that people should be allowed to use their computers however they like, whether the devices are shaped like laptops, cell phones, or tablets."
If the FSF believes in freedom, shouldn't I have the freedom to steal their code without attribution? Copyright gives the GPL teeth and it should be respected. Just like authors should have freedom over their works, hardware vendors should have freedom over their platforms, regardless of what others think is right. Apple will pull the App and have no liability. I question what motives the FSF had in this.
"Apple will need to host the code, and make a note somewhere that it is available. Then they will be compliant."
Actually no. The FSF is not complaining about the source. They are complaining about right to re-distribute. Apple can distribute the app, but must allow those that download the app to distribute it further. Since you can not transfer an app between phones/iTunes accounts, and by the iTunes EULA, Apple is preventing the re-distribution rights which violates the GPL and negates their right to distribute. Source code would not help, and I doubt Apple would mind releasing the source at all.
Quite frankly, as a user I don't want your job as a developer to be simpler. What I want is you to do your job and develop to the target platform. Write once zealots don't think about the consequences. Case in point, flash based game, runs full screen in browser no matter what size the browser is. Great right? Wrong, a dialogue comes up that it taller than my netbook's maximized window. User input button's are off the screen and there is no way to close the dialog. Stop expecting others to make your programs work everywhere. Define your customers and serve them a robust application that works.
As a developer, again I don't want other developers jobs to be simpler. I am tired of supporting application that suck because the developer put no thought into the user experience.
The problem is, the evangelical anti-apple crowd are all the "geeks." They use arguments like I want freedom on the device and I want to use whatever development tools I want. What Steve is saying is, the average user doesn't care about these things. They want intuitive and easy to use. They want just works. Can I buy a high end PC for $900? Yes. But the average person, ie non geek, is taking it back to geek squad every 6 months to get the malware off of it at a cost of $200. I know people that buy new computers every year because they get slow. I clean em up and they are good as new. So you pay a little more, but when you add the reduction of tech support, the total cost of ownership is lower for a layman. This isn't a bad thing. Apple has a market. Their market is growing. Why does the geek crowd they are not marketing to feel so threatened they need to bash them?
It's not quite that simple and neat. This goes back to a deeper history between Apple and Adobe. Apple is releasing over 100 new API's with iPhone OS 4, how long until Adobe supports them? Adobe and Apple had a pretty good relationship. Apple develops OS X and as a result of wanting to progress eliminates backwards compatibility. Adobe pleads with Apple, and Apple writes Carbon wrapper with the promise Adobe would migrate to the new APIs. But Adobe never did. Until Apple cancelled the 64 bit Carbon and told Adobe Coccoa or 32 bit only!
Now apple is looking at Flash and seeing the same problem down the road. If Adobe refuses to take advantage of new APIs and features that requires what they deem as too much effort, then the platform will suffer. Especially if Flash becomes the platform of choice for developers due to portability. Adobe has screwed Apple before. Apple doesn't want to see Adobe take control of their platform and screw them again.
The example was meant to show that there was at best poor judgment on the part of the "good samaritan." You admit you would not interfere with Police because they would attend to the wounded criminal. Likewise, the military attends to the wounded after a battle. When the van was shot up, ground forces were already in route to render aid. The first thing they did was find wounded and radio for evac.
Where was the warning? None needed. This is a war zone. The apache helos are likely a kilometer away. Different senario.
This isn't the scene of an "accident." If police gun down an armed suspect and you run over to render aid, the police are going to detain you. If you pick up the weapon the armed suspect had the police are going to order you to drop it. If you don't, they will gun you down.
There are times to be a good Samaritan and times to mind your own business.
Yes, and assuming Palm knows this and coded it in, what happens if it changes. What if there becomes a technical reason for Apple to change this process and it bricks a Pre?
No, It's not just Palm's problem. Apple has a reputation for seem less technology that just works. Right or wrong iTunes is an Apple product and it's operation with the Pre will effect Apple's image with the general public.
I would argue that vendor ID and device ID aren't tricks. It's how you determine what proprietary devices and use what proprietary software. USB is a communication standard, not an interoperability standard. My USB printer driver doesn't work with my USB flash drive.
Perhaps you have insight I do not. Does the iPod check with iTunes for a firmware upgrade or does iTunes check the iPod? See the difference. The Pre says it's an iPod, iTunes says, hey I have a firmware upgrade for you.
This isn't about lock in. It's about indentity. iTunes doesn't just sync music. It pushes FIRMWARE updates. Kind of important to know what the device is.
Apple is doing nothing to prevent copying files to the Pre. They are preventing it from using the iPod sync which is device specific.
The thing is there is a diference between hardawre interoperability and software. Xbox 360 games do not have to play on a PS3. OS X programs don't have to work under Windows. Is this a software or Hardware interoperability issue? Is Apple required to make the iPod driver work with the Palm Pre? So HP has to provide me with drivers for my Xerox printer? iTunes does more than sync, it is the iPod driver that allows the Pre to sync with iTunes.
The only Open standard Apple isn't using is mounting the iPod/iPhone as a HD. iTunes is not just a file sync to iPods taht won't play nice. It handles firmware and software updates that Palm can't/won't be privy to. By breaking the USB vendor ID Palm is risking the bricking of Pres whenever Apple tries to do more than just a file sync. This is bad for Everyone. USB is a standard. Apples uses the standard, correctly, in order to connect to a closed system, iTunes. That is perfectly within the spec. What you are claiming is I should be able to use Blackberry sync software with my iPhone if I choose.
But this isn't about "interoperability" no matter how Palm wants to sell it. iTunes has interoperability in it. Palm is choosing not to use it cause they want to be "just like an iPod." There is a difference between interoperability and hardware incompatibility. iTunes manages your music library and manages your hardware. Apple provides access to the libraries openly for any device. Palm is lying to iTunes/Windows/OS X claiming to be an iPod. This could potentially have severe ramifications should Apple push out a firmware to iPods and the command is mis-interpreted by the Pre. Apple is trying to protect themselves and Pre users. Palm is throwing everyone under the bus.
What we don't know: - What could possibly brick a Pre. - How many support calls Apple is getting from Pre users.
What we do know: - Palm was reporting itself as a Palm iPod, now broken - Palm is reporting itself as an Apple iPod
Palm is violating the USB spec, Trademark law and possibly copyright law. But, lets cheer on Palm.
Slashdot Mirror
No, It would be like Sony owing an advertising business and Samsung owning an advertising business. Sony allows all advertising businesses to get viewing habits and feature use info from the TV, except Samsung's since they could use that information in producing TVs your customers like.
Did you watch teh WWDC Keynote? Specifically the demo of the Nissan iAd? Lets look at how I could get analytics without "stealing" them from the device:
- Ad is displayed from a server (# of ads displayed)
- Webpage is accessed via ad (clicks)
- IP Address accessing servers (geo-location)
- Time of Day
- Date
- A webform for more information (Demoed in the Nissan iAd) could get any information a user is willing to provide
- A contest registration (again demoed in the Nissan iAd)
- A coupon, can track the redemption and store redeemed at.
There is a lot of data there and none of it pulled from the iPhone. I am not an advertiser, I am sure people smarter than me can come up with a lot more. The issue is AdMob will have to involve the user in getting their private data. I have no problem with that.
Again this a poor analogy. Office was an application. The private API's were part of Windows. Office was not playing by the same rules as other applications. The private API's in iOS are used by the operating system. iTunes, iPod, Phone, Mail, and Safari are part of the OS. Apple does not write a lot of Apps for the App Store. Now, on the few they do, if they used the private API's and not the public ones there would be issues. This is what Microsoft did. So you would need to look at Keynote, iMovie, Remote, and Keynote Remote to see if they use private APIs, and thus an unfair advantage. The App store itself is no different than Sony or Microsoft requiring signed code for Playstation and Xbox.
Because I they learned with the Fring iPad discovery, analytics could provide their mobile phone competitors with information that helps them compete with Apple/iPhone. Things like:
- New prototype devices/features
- How much time iPhone users spend doing X, Y, and Z
- Where iPhone users use their phones the most
- What features iPhone users like the most
This can help Google/Microsoft replicate the most compelling features and tailor the devices to the usage of iPhone customers. Why should Apple allow this information to go to a competitor?
It's more complicated than that. AdMob is a competitor of iAds. AdMob would have 100% of the rights to analytics if AdMob was solely AdMob. Problem is AdMob is Google. Google makes Android. Android is a competitor of iPhone, not iAds. Problem is, analytics gathered by AdMob off iPhones could give advantages to Android. This is not about being anti-competitive with AdMob. It is about protecting iPhone development from Android developers.
They have analytics they can collect without stealing them from the device:
- When an ad is displayed from a server
- When a page is reached from an ad
- A user submitted form for additional info (just like the iAd demoed at WWDC)
- Contest registrations (just like the iAd demoed at WWDC)
They aren't out of a job, they just have to think of ways to improve their service.
I could understand if Apple was rejecting developers because they also release on other platforms. THAT is what Microsoft was doing. Instead they are rejecting certain applications based on the application. If these apps are available on other platforms and users want them, then Apple shouldn't be getting all that market share. I can't demand Sony support playing XBOX 360 games on a PS3.
Not if the Mozilla team represents 100% of the authors. If it does, they are within their rights to dual license their code in a non GPL form. This is why it will be interesting to see who submitted the GNU Go port.
I wonder how much knowledge the FSF has of the situation. Are they acting on their own, or is one of the authors involved? Who submitted the App? If it was the "authors" they are in their right to dual license their code. There can be a GPL and non-GPL version. The non-GPL version doesn't suddenly become GPLed. Based on their letter, this seems like an evangelical rant against Apple.
"We believe that people should be allowed to use their computers however they like, whether the devices are shaped like laptops, cell phones, or tablets."
If the FSF believes in freedom, shouldn't I have the freedom to steal their code without attribution? Copyright gives the GPL teeth and it should be respected. Just like authors should have freedom over their works, hardware vendors should have freedom over their platforms, regardless of what others think is right. Apple will pull the App and have no liability. I question what motives the FSF had in this.
"Apple will need to host the code, and make a note somewhere that it is available. Then they will be compliant."
Actually no. The FSF is not complaining about the source. They are complaining about right to re-distribute. Apple can distribute the app, but must allow those that download the app to distribute it further. Since you can not transfer an app between phones/iTunes accounts, and by the iTunes EULA, Apple is preventing the re-distribution rights which violates the GPL and negates their right to distribute. Source code would not help, and I doubt Apple would mind releasing the source at all.
Quite frankly, as a user I don't want your job as a developer to be simpler. What I want is you to do your job and develop to the target platform. Write once zealots don't think about the consequences. Case in point, flash based game, runs full screen in browser no matter what size the browser is. Great right? Wrong, a dialogue comes up that it taller than my netbook's maximized window. User input button's are off the screen and there is no way to close the dialog. Stop expecting others to make your programs work everywhere. Define your customers and serve them a robust application that works.
As a developer, again I don't want other developers jobs to be simpler. I am tired of supporting application that suck because the developer put no thought into the user experience.
I played it, but it was a vacation day! Honest!
The problem is, the evangelical anti-apple crowd are all the "geeks." They use arguments like I want freedom on the device and I want to use whatever development tools I want. What Steve is saying is, the average user doesn't care about these things. They want intuitive and easy to use. They want just works. Can I buy a high end PC for $900? Yes. But the average person, ie non geek, is taking it back to geek squad every 6 months to get the malware off of it at a cost of $200. I know people that buy new computers every year because they get slow. I clean em up and they are good as new. So you pay a little more, but when you add the reduction of tech support, the total cost of ownership is lower for a layman. This isn't a bad thing. Apple has a market. Their market is growing. Why does the geek crowd they are not marketing to feel so threatened they need to bash them?
It's not quite that simple and neat. This goes back to a deeper history between Apple and Adobe. Apple is releasing over 100 new API's with iPhone OS 4, how long until Adobe supports them? Adobe and Apple had a pretty good relationship. Apple develops OS X and as a result of wanting to progress eliminates backwards compatibility. Adobe pleads with Apple, and Apple writes Carbon wrapper with the promise Adobe would migrate to the new APIs. But Adobe never did. Until Apple cancelled the 64 bit Carbon and told Adobe Coccoa or 32 bit only!
Now apple is looking at Flash and seeing the same problem down the road. If Adobe refuses to take advantage of new APIs and features that requires what they deem as too much effort, then the platform will suffer. Especially if Flash becomes the platform of choice for developers due to portability. Adobe has screwed Apple before. Apple doesn't want to see Adobe take control of their platform and screw them again.
The example was meant to show that there was at best poor judgment on the part of the "good samaritan." You admit you would not interfere with Police because they would attend to the wounded criminal. Likewise, the military attends to the wounded after a battle. When the van was shot up, ground forces were already in route to render aid. The first thing they did was find wounded and radio for evac.
Where was the warning? None needed. This is a war zone. The apache helos are likely a kilometer away. Different senario.
This isn't the scene of an "accident." If police gun down an armed suspect and you run over to render aid, the police are going to detain you. If you pick up the weapon the armed suspect had the police are going to order you to drop it. If you don't, they will gun you down.
There are times to be a good Samaritan and times to mind your own business.
And you have to buy a PC and $150-$300 windows license to compile it for windows. What's the difference?
Yes, and assuming Palm knows this and coded it in, what happens if it changes. What if there becomes a technical reason for Apple to change this process and it bricks a Pre?
No, It's not just Palm's problem. Apple has a reputation for seem less technology that just works. Right or wrong iTunes is an Apple product and it's operation with the Pre will effect Apple's image with the general public.
I would argue that vendor ID and device ID aren't tricks. It's how you determine what proprietary devices and use what proprietary software. USB is a communication standard, not an interoperability standard. My USB printer driver doesn't work with my USB flash drive.
Perhaps you have insight I do not. Does the iPod check with iTunes for a firmware upgrade or does iTunes check the iPod? See the difference. The Pre says it's an iPod, iTunes says, hey I have a firmware upgrade for you.
Well, Palm is now violating trademark law by identifying itself as an Apple(TM) product.
This isn't about lock in. It's about indentity. iTunes doesn't just sync music. It pushes FIRMWARE updates. Kind of important to know what the device is.
Apple is doing nothing to prevent copying files to the Pre. They are preventing it from using the iPod sync which is device specific.
The thing is there is a diference between hardawre interoperability and software. Xbox 360 games do not have to play on a PS3. OS X programs don't have to work under Windows. Is this a software or Hardware interoperability issue? Is Apple required to make the iPod driver work with the Palm Pre? So HP has to provide me with drivers for my Xerox printer? iTunes does more than sync, it is the iPod driver that allows the Pre to sync with iTunes.
The only Open standard Apple isn't using is mounting the iPod/iPhone as a HD. iTunes is not just a file sync to iPods taht won't play nice. It handles firmware and software updates that Palm can't/won't be privy to. By breaking the USB vendor ID Palm is risking the bricking of Pres whenever Apple tries to do more than just a file sync. This is bad for Everyone. USB is a standard. Apples uses the standard, correctly, in order to connect to a closed system, iTunes. That is perfectly within the spec. What you are claiming is I should be able to use Blackberry sync software with my iPhone if I choose.
But this isn't about "interoperability" no matter how Palm wants to sell it. iTunes has interoperability in it. Palm is choosing not to use it cause they want to be "just like an iPod." There is a difference between interoperability and hardware incompatibility. iTunes manages your music library and manages your hardware. Apple provides access to the libraries openly for any device. Palm is lying to iTunes/Windows/OS X claiming to be an iPod. This could potentially have severe ramifications should Apple push out a firmware to iPods and the command is mis-interpreted by the Pre. Apple is trying to protect themselves and Pre users. Palm is throwing everyone under the bus.
What we don't know:
- What could possibly brick a Pre.
- How many support calls Apple is getting from Pre users.
What we do know:
- Palm was reporting itself as a Palm iPod, now broken
- Palm is reporting itself as an Apple iPod
Palm is violating the USB spec, Trademark law and possibly copyright law. But, lets cheer on Palm.