4 ms·

Wikipedia Wales says Apple's App Store is a threat to openness online

10 points by Mithrandir 16y ago

ghshephard 16y ago
There might be something to this if Apple had a monopoly on the "Mobile Internet" (the portion that Wales is referring to) AND forced everyone to interact with the "Mobile Internet" through applications acquired through the AppStore - two problems with this thesis: o Apple does not have a monopoly on the Mobile Internet. o Apple's support for open HTML 5 protocols is stronger than any previous generation of Mobile Platforms that connected to the internet. We can critique Apple in a lot of places with regards to their AppStore (though, it's gotten much better lately) - but, ruining the Mobile Internet is not one of them. I seem to recall that the iPhone was actually the _first_ really decent phone browser that you could use to connect to the internet - if anything, Apple spawned the "Open" Mobile Internet.
- metageek 16y ago
  Third problem: Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones, and is steadily losing ground to Android. (Which is not to say they're doomed. They'll probably keep a healthy marketshare, just not the dominant position they used to have.)
  - ugh 16y ago
    (Your third problem is the same as the first problem.)
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Also, compare Apple's impact through the app store with the potential of: - Mobile providers throttling particular apps - Mobile providers and bandwidth caps - The balkanization of networking (Facebook) - Pushing a patent-encumbered standard for video (Apple is involved here, but is only one player of several.) EDIT: Technically h.264 is "open"
  - ugh 16y ago
    h.264 is an open standard.
    - Mithrandir 16y ago
      h.264 is also patent and royalty encumbered, which is the real issue here.
      - ugh 16y ago
        It’s still what is usually called an “open standard”. Saying it is not open is confusing and misleading. If you don’t like the commonly used definition you are obviously free to redefine your terms, but you should mention that you are using an uncommon definition. Saying “patent and royalty encumbered” would be preferable because it’s not as misleading and much more precise as calling h.264 “not open”.
        ItsBilly 16y ago
        No, using a vague and loaded word like "open" at all is what is confusing and misleading. It's watered down to "Web 2.0" levels.
  - ItsBilly 16y ago
    It can't be "technically" open because there's no technical definition of open. Under one side's definition, just having a lot of industry players collaborate on it in public makes it open (the definition you're using) whereas the other side says if its freedom is encumbered by patents then it's not open. Open is a horribly diluted word and there's no way imaginable you can say anything is "technically" or "not technically" open.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      This is the reason for the scare quotes.
zdw 16y ago
Title is linkbait. He doesn't like that Apple is the gatekeeper on their App Stores, as if the consumer doesn't have any other hardware options out there...
- Mithrandir 16y ago
  Fixed. Sorry about that. Didn't see it until it was too late. :)
cletus 16y ago
If Wales had his way, the Apple Inc Wikipedia entry would read: > Founders: Steve Wozniak, Ronald Wayne and DEFINITELY NOT Larry Sanger
ghshephard 16y ago
Compare Apple's impact to openness online to Microsoft's back in early 2000. There were a lot of banking and corporate websites that only worked with IE and Active-X. As a result, every corporate machine (and many users of these banking sites) - had to have a copy of IE floating around to fully access the Internet - and good portions of the internet just weren't usable for many Linux/BSD users. Now - how much of the Mobile Internet requires that you use an Apple product? Apple just doesn't have enough market dominance to result in more than a trivial portion of the Mobile Internet to be written _specifically_ for Safari/IOS Browers. Wales is completely off his rocker here. As long as Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and yes, IE, continue to have a strong presence as browsers (and I don't see that changing anytime soon), and as long as Anddroid, WP7, and others start rolling out first class smart phones, Apple will not be a threat to the Mobile Internet. This is one of those cases where lack of a market leader actually results in a better adherence to standards. As long as the focus is "Build an ACID3 Compliance Browser" for the vendors, and developers write "ACID3 Compliant Websites" - we'll be in fine shape (modulo the recent Video controversy)

10 points by Mithrandir 16y ago

There might be something to this if Apple had a monopoly on the "Mobile Internet" (the portion that Wales is referring to) AND forced everyone to interact with the "Mobile Internet" through applications acquired through the AppStore - two problems with this thesis: o Apple does not have a monopoly on the Mobile Internet. o Apple's support for open HTML 5 protocols is stronger than any previous generation of Mobile Platforms that connected to the internet. We can critique Apple in a lot of places with regards to their AppStore (though, it's gotten much better lately) - but, ruining the Mobile Internet is not one of them. I seem to recall that the iPhone was actually the _first_ really decent phone browser that you could use to connect to the internet - if anything, Apple spawned the "Open" Mobile Internet.

metageek 16y ago
Third problem: Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones, and is steadily losing ground to Android. (Which is not to say they're doomed. They'll probably keep a healthy marketshare, just not the dominant position they used to have.)
- ugh 16y ago
  (Your third problem is the same as the first problem.)
stcredzero 16y ago
Also, compare Apple's impact through the app store with the potential of: - Mobile providers throttling particular apps - Mobile providers and bandwidth caps - The balkanization of networking (Facebook) - Pushing a patent-encumbered standard for video (Apple is involved here, but is only one player of several.) EDIT: Technically h.264 is "open"
- ugh 16y ago
  h.264 is an open standard.
  - Mithrandir 16y ago
    h.264 is also patent and royalty encumbered, which is the real issue here.
    - ugh 16y ago
      It’s still what is usually called an “open standard”. Saying it is not open is confusing and misleading. If you don’t like the commonly used definition you are obviously free to redefine your terms, but you should mention that you are using an uncommon definition. Saying “patent and royalty encumbered” would be preferable because it’s not as misleading and much more precise as calling h.264 “not open”.
      - ItsBilly 16y ago
        No, using a vague and loaded word like "open" at all is what is confusing and misleading. It's watered down to "Web 2.0" levels.
- ItsBilly 16y ago
  It can't be "technically" open because there's no technical definition of open. Under one side's definition, just having a lot of industry players collaborate on it in public makes it open (the definition you're using) whereas the other side says if its freedom is encumbered by patents then it's not open. Open is a horribly diluted word and there's no way imaginable you can say anything is "technically" or "not technically" open.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    This is the reason for the scare quotes.

zdw 16y ago

Title is linkbait. He doesn't like that Apple is the gatekeeper on their App Stores, as if the consumer doesn't have any other hardware options out there...

Mithrandir 16y ago
Fixed. Sorry about that. Didn't see it until it was too late. :)

cletus 16y ago

If Wales had his way, the Apple Inc Wikipedia entry would read: > Founders: Steve Wozniak, Ronald Wayne and DEFINITELY NOT Larry Sanger

ghshephard 16y ago

Compare Apple's impact to openness online to Microsoft's back in early 2000. There were a lot of banking and corporate websites that only worked with IE and Active-X. As a result, every corporate machine (and many users of these banking sites) - had to have a copy of IE floating around to fully access the Internet - and good portions of the internet just weren't usable for many Linux/BSD users. Now - how much of the Mobile Internet requires that you use an Apple product? Apple just doesn't have enough market dominance to result in more than a trivial portion of the Mobile Internet to be written _specifically_ for Safari/IOS Browers. Wales is completely off his rocker here. As long as Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and yes, IE, continue to have a strong presence as browsers (and I don't see that changing anytime soon), and as long as Anddroid, WP7, and others start rolling out first class smart phones, Apple will not be a threat to the Mobile Internet. This is one of those cases where lack of a market leader actually results in a better adherence to standards. As long as the focus is "Build an ACID3 Compliance Browser" for the vendors, and developers write "ACID3 Compliant Websites" - we'll be in fine shape (modulo the recent Video controversy)