4 ms·

No, I never did subscribe to Apple ideology, but I can see that you're quite indoctrinated. 1) You got me there. I was quite stupid to pay for an overpriced iP

by hobbs 19y ago

No, I never did subscribe to Apple ideology, but I can see that you're quite indoctrinated. 1) You got me there. I was quite stupid to pay for an overpriced iPod when all I wanted to do was rip my CD's to an MP3 player. Unfortunately the packaging did not contain a disclaimer saying that the computer interface did not work like every other MP3 player ever sold. Apple will never fool me twice. 2) I can see if AT&T somehow subsidized the phone, the lock-in would be fair, but it doesn't. Apple got the exclusive contract only so it could get extra cash above and beyond the original purchase price. This is about as consumer-friendly as the crapware that is preinstalled on most PC's. 3) Equating Apple's practices to Microsoft's practices only strengthens my argument. 4) It has nothing to do with CPU cycles or battery life. The SDK allows any developer to waste as much battery life as they want. I was referring to the prohibition against interpreters: http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2008/03/06/apple-bans-firefox-spidermonkey-lisp-lua-ruby-python-rhino-java-opera-gcc/ http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2008/03/06/apple-bans-fire...

alaskamiller 19y ago
1. iPods are priced quite well in their segments. I would offer that you buy other products in the future, Sandisk have quite a few dandy mp3 players. 2. How do you know AT&T is not subsidizing the $399 price point? Apple got the contract because AT&T was willing to share profits and upgrade their service backend. The other companies didn't want to, what exactly are you complaining about? 3. For what it's worth Apple has already said it's going to use iTunes and Software Update to push Safari. http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1286 http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1286 And it's ultimately up to the end user to install what they want to install. Safari is not an integrated service with iTunes and someone doesn't want to install it (like me) they just uncheck it and press done. 4. I'm of the point that they're forbidding Java and Flash because of its interference with iPhone's UI. And the link your posted is sensationalizing the fact that apps written for iPhone won't be able to download other code to run. Wow. That's sure is a shocker. I'm amazed they even bothered setting up the App Store and reviewgate. It also seems quite poignant to point out that iPhone can't run all those nifty programs. Like I said, it's a double-edged sword. Apple releases a product/machine and people jump and dance around and demand it be doing this and that and this and that and this. Then everyone and hoops and holler that it doesn't. At the end of the day it's a computer. Apples are meant to look pretty, if you don't like there's plenty of other PC manufacturers ready to take your money. That or you can donate it to save Darfur or something.

by hobbs 19y ago

alaskamiller 19y ago

1. iPods are priced quite well in their segments. I would offer that you buy other products in the future, Sandisk have quite a few dandy mp3 players. 2. How do you know AT&T is not subsidizing the $399 price point? Apple got the contract because AT&T was willing to share profits and upgrade their service backend. The other companies didn't want to, what exactly are you complaining about? 3. For what it's worth Apple has already said it's going to use iTunes and Software Update to push Safari. http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1286 http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1286 And it's ultimately up to the end user to install what they want to install. Safari is not an integrated service with iTunes and someone doesn't want to install it (like me) they just uncheck it and press done. 4. I'm of the point that they're forbidding Java and Flash because of its interference with iPhone's UI. And the link your posted is sensationalizing the fact that apps written for iPhone won't be able to download other code to run. Wow. That's sure is a shocker. I'm amazed they even bothered setting up the App Store and reviewgate. It also seems quite poignant to point out that iPhone can't run all those nifty programs. Like I said, it's a double-edged sword. Apple releases a product/machine and people jump and dance around and demand it be doing this and that and this and that and this. Then everyone and hoops and holler that it doesn't. At the end of the day it's a computer. Apples are meant to look pretty, if you don't like there's plenty of other PC manufacturers ready to take your money. That or you can donate it to save Darfur or something.