4 ms·
That is because you see it as semantic, when it is clearly more then semantic. Apple owns the means of distribution, and get's to determine the rules. Past ju
by voidfiles 16y ago
That is because you see it as semantic, when it is clearly more then semantic.
Apple owns the means of distribution, and get's to determine the rules.
Past just owning the means of distribution, they have an almost absolute lock on "mind share". This isn't all Apple's doing, clearly there are market forces at work.
HTML5 Apps, all by them selves, aren't what is so awesome about OpenAppMkt. It's that they are trying to circumnavigate the distribution channel.
Think, what if every day consumers could grasp the idea of two app stores. Then Apple would perk up, because the other App store could market its self on being more open.
I am not saying that this is how it will go down, or even if it's possible, but the only way to figure it out is to try, and OpenAppMkt is doing that.
- tptacek 16y agoApple explicitly promotes HTML applications. Applications that cost money to use. Jobs promotes them, Apple promotes them, and Apple takes explicit steps to make those applications easier to build. I see what you're saying: that if someone builds an application that provides a market-style umbrella over these applications, Apple might freak out. I concede that it is possible that Apple might freak out. I object strongly to the idea that they probably will freak out. I think it's very improbable that they will freak out, and that there's no evidence other than tea leaves of how they manage their own app store to suggest that they will.
- voidfiles 16y agoI too would be conservative about what they will do, I think it's hard to guess how a company might react. I do think that history provide a guide, when control over the means of anything communication, distribution, or production is threatened the controller usually put's up a fight.