4 ms·
Not being in control of your own computer isn't a problem, so long as you stop thinking of it as your own computer, but as a device that allows you to access co
by madaxe 16y ago
Not being in control of your own computer isn't a problem, so long as you stop thinking of it as your own computer, but as a device that allows you to access content.
If you want a computer that allows you to tinker and use it for purposes other than that for which it was originally intended, they'll always be there, because there'll always be a market for it.
Apple has a closed ecosystem. That doesn't make it bad, it just makes it controlled. You don't expect to be able to modify the source of facebook, or google, or any other large web service, but you'll happily use it - wherein, fundamentally, lies the difference?
Finally, apple's approach to jailbreaking and the like is laudable, insofar as they're basically fine with people doing whatever they want with their hardware, so long as those people are also OK with being excluded from the ecosystem those devices are designed to operate within. I highly doubt that the fact that the original root password on iOS devices was a dictionary word was accidental.
As for a monopoly on distribution - not so long ago, the tech community was aflame with panic that microsoft would monopolise everything, and we'd all be fucked in various different imaginary malthusian techno-catastrophes. It didn't happen, microsoft is in decline, and it's because they attempted to enforce their monopoly through legal means rather than through building loyalty through quality. If apple end up with a monopoly because they excel at what they do, it's not necessarily a bad thing, as if they cease to be good at what they do, it'll be nary a heartbeat before the wolves are at the door, building and creating better alternatives.
- Tichy 16y ago"wherein, fundamentally, lies the difference?" I don't want to mess with Google's or Facebook's or Apple's code. I want to publish stuff without having to pay a fee to Apple. Granted, maybe there will always be the Internet, so we have nothing to worry about. In essence, Apple would end up being more like TV, only with more channels. I don't like Google or Facebook becoming monopolies, either.
- madaxe 16y agoIf apple does end up having that variety of completely push model, they will end up alienating their most evangelical userbase - something they may potentially not particularly care about by the point at which they'd make a decision of that ilk - however, if they do, said evangelists will jump ship, fast, and the next iteration of creation and growth will start once more. Monopolies only exist when they're protected by law - take, for instance, Fannie Mae and friends - in a capitalist society, however, in the absence of such foul concepts as lobbying, monopolies don't exist, and can't, as typical monopolistic behaviour is ultimately self-destructive, as it merely encourages consumers to seek alternate service or product providers. In terms of having to pay a fee to apple - they provide the platform, they provide the consumers, they provide the tools - and for that, you pay a fee. The alternative is self-publishing, which is, and always will be, possible, but it doesn't come with a built-in consumer base, and therein lies the rub.
- Tichy 16y agoSelf publishing for Apple iOS devices is not possible. As I said in another comment, I have nothing against app stores.