7 ms·

Exhibit A: iTunes (the service) is essentially blocked off from being accessed by people who don't have iTunes (the program) installed. This becomes VERY obviou

by larrik 16y ago

Exhibit A: iTunes (the service) is essentially blocked off from being accessed by people who don't have iTunes (the program) installed. This becomes VERY obvious if you run Linux. The App Store and the iTune music library are not easily searchable or browseable from your Linux PC. 3rd party websites that do this instead aren't really the point, either.

sudont 16y ago
Not quite, iTunes is a proprietary service that just happens to utilize HTML as it's markup language, at least in Apple's intent. It's use is similar to the use of XML in other applications: the service is strictly there for one client, it just so happens that a lot of other applications implement it. The web-accessible version is a benefit of this, but it really reveals the bullshit motive behind keeping iTunes' store closed.
pohl 16y ago
I don't think that makes a very compelling exhibit, given that "the internet" is not "all things you can get to via a web browser". The internet, rather, is IP, TCP, UDP, etc...and every protocol built on top of it. This includes HTTP & HTML (which iTunes leverages heavily) but also a many other things that are not browser-oriented. Regardless, I think your exhibit is more easily explained by Apple understanding exactly who is likely to spend money and making them want to be their customers. I'm a huge Debian fanatic, but I have to admit that the linux users are the most tight-fisted demographic I've ever seen.
- krakensden 16y ago
  We're not that tight fisted, and besides, what's the point of actively working to make it harder for us to give Apple money?
- btmorex 16y ago
  but I have to admit that the linux users are the most tight-fisted demographic I've ever seen. This seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you just said: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28471/Humble_Indie_Bundle_Charity_Drive_Approaches_700000.php http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28471/Humble_Indie_Bundle...
  - pohl 16y ago
    Yeah, that always gets trotted out in this context. If what you think this suggests is true there would be more than one such story. To me it just smells of a demographic grateful of finally getting some mercy sex. Besides, it's a charity. I was talking about commerce.
    - btmorex 16y ago
      Well, one real story is a whole lot more compelling than hearsay.
      - Bud 16y ago
        He has a bit more than hearsay going for him; Apple's success in various markets lately has been huge. Linux's success in getting people to spend anything like that kind of money in any consumer context? Basically nil. Come on, we all know this, we don't need a page of citations to prove to us that Apple is the biggest non-Exxon company in world history, and it's not by accident or some mysterious means.
        fakelvis 16y ago
        Linux's 'failure' in getting people to spend "that kind of money" in a consumer context is most likely due to the fact that it's not a centrally-owned commercial entity with a product line and shareholders (i.e. what Apple Inc. is), not due to do any actual 'failure'. I'm not saying that the users of Apple products and those of Linux distributions don't differ in their purchasing habits (and I'm not saying they do, either)--I'm just pointing out the flaw in this line of reasoning. And I don't know why you keep repeating this "biggest non-Exxon company in world history" argument, too. It's sensationalist and by two of the most common metrics, false: * By market capitalization they've been the biggest in only three quarters in history (most recent), all of which are smaller than other companies in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_capitalization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_... * By revenue there are many, many non-Exxon (i.e. oil?) companies bigger than Apple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue
- hrktb 16y ago
  >Regardless, I think your exhibit is more easily explained by Apple understanding exactly who is likely to spend money and making them want to be their customers. It's slightly different from the iTunes situation, but the same case can be made for Mobile me services. On any iOS device you won't be able to access mobile me (mail, calendar, address book, gallery) through the browser, you have to set it up locally and use the native applications. Mobile me is for people who by definition spent money upfront on the service, and people using iOS devices are the customers. So far it's been a pita to deal with their lack of support for mobile safari access.
- donaq 16y ago
  Really? I'm a linux user, but I bought an OpenMoko phone despite knowing it's pretty much going to be a paperweight. I bought an ugly keychain from RMS when he was in KL. I own a couple of Android phones. I could have saved some money on my Milestone if I'd gotten an iPhone on the cheap from my carrier and then sold it to offset my Milestone purchase, but I opted not to put more money in the Apple coffers (it was right after that fiasco about them dictating what languages you could use to develop for their app store and I was pissed). I am not tight-fisted, but I am pretty idealistic about who I am supporting with my purchases. I have two close friends who use primarily linux and they're both pretty generous. Both of them also own iPhones, incidentally. My anecdotal evidence against yours.
- wladimir 16y ago
  1) I don't know about Mac, but most windows users I know pirated a lot of their software. Isn't that just as tight-fisted? 2) There is not much commercial software for sale for Linux at all, so I guess there is a chicken and egg problem. 3) Of course you will sell less Linux copies of a piece of software. There are less Linux users. But to say Linux users are comparatively tight-fisted compared to users of other OSes, I'm not sure how you come up with that, Personnally, I'd buy a lot more games if they simply worked in Ubuntu... And if iTunes worked on Linux I'd buy more music there.
fryguy 16y ago
Exhibit B: In order to do things with your iPhone (like download podcasts, or update firmware), you need to plug it in to your computer and have it do a sync. The phone is on the internet, why do you need to plug it in? Google got this completely right on their phone in that everything syncs to "the cloud." I'm not saying android is perfect, but that is one aspect that's better about it.
- alok-g 16y ago
  My personal plight is the opposite -- In order to do things with Android, you need to sync to the cloud. Plugging it to the computer is not enough.
  - ryandvm 16y ago
    That's absurd. How difficult is it to connect your wifi-capable, smartphone to the Internet?
    - alok-g 16y ago
      Connecting it to internet is not the issue. The issue is that there are features on the phone that have been artificially rendered unusable without syncing with Google. Just for example, you cannot create a new entry in Google's Calendar app without adding a Google account for syncing. It further seems that Google has even restricted the APIs beneath so the third-party developers cannot populate the calendar app using data from Outlook. You must have a Google account added to the Calendar app. Because of this limitation, developers have to build their own app for calendar to support Outlook sync without Google account. Likewise, I have found it often difficult to add apps to Android without using Android Market (which requires signing into Google Account). ADB works fine, but then it is generally hard to find APK file to begin with.
- wvenable 16y ago
  My parents just purchased a laptop; they're not really "computer people" but it's hard to get by without one these days. They might have been better off with an iPad but they could never use it because it requires an existing computer to work. My daughter got an iPod touch for Christmas and I was shocked that it's just a useless brick until connected to a computer. I had to bring her laptop to Christmas (and hide it) so she could use her shinny new toy once it was out of the package.

by larrik 16y ago

sudont 16y ago

Not quite, iTunes is a proprietary service that just happens to utilize HTML as it's markup language, at least in Apple's intent. It's use is similar to the use of XML in other applications: the service is strictly there for one client, it just so happens that a lot of other applications implement it. The web-accessible version is a benefit of this, but it really reveals the bullshit motive behind keeping iTunes' store closed.

pohl 16y ago

I don't think that makes a very compelling exhibit, given that "the internet" is not "all things you can get to via a web browser". The internet, rather, is IP, TCP, UDP, etc...and every protocol built on top of it. This includes HTTP & HTML (which iTunes leverages heavily) but also a many other things that are not browser-oriented. Regardless, I think your exhibit is more easily explained by Apple understanding exactly who is likely to spend money and making them want to be their customers. I'm a huge Debian fanatic, but I have to admit that the linux users are the most tight-fisted demographic I've ever seen.

krakensden 16y ago
We're not that tight fisted, and besides, what's the point of actively working to make it harder for us to give Apple money?
btmorex 16y ago
but I have to admit that the linux users are the most tight-fisted demographic I've ever seen. This seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you just said: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28471/Humble_Indie_Bundle_Charity_Drive_Approaches_700000.php http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28471/Humble_Indie_Bundle...
- pohl 16y ago
  Yeah, that always gets trotted out in this context. If what you think this suggests is true there would be more than one such story. To me it just smells of a demographic grateful of finally getting some mercy sex. Besides, it's a charity. I was talking about commerce.
  - btmorex 16y ago
    Well, one real story is a whole lot more compelling than hearsay.
    - Bud 16y ago
      He has a bit more than hearsay going for him; Apple's success in various markets lately has been huge. Linux's success in getting people to spend anything like that kind of money in any consumer context? Basically nil. Come on, we all know this, we don't need a page of citations to prove to us that Apple is the biggest non-Exxon company in world history, and it's not by accident or some mysterious means.
      - fakelvis 16y ago
        Linux's 'failure' in getting people to spend "that kind of money" in a consumer context is most likely due to the fact that it's not a centrally-owned commercial entity with a product line and shareholders (i.e. what Apple Inc. is), not due to do any actual 'failure'. I'm not saying that the users of Apple products and those of Linux distributions don't differ in their purchasing habits (and I'm not saying they do, either)--I'm just pointing out the flaw in this line of reasoning. And I don't know why you keep repeating this "biggest non-Exxon company in world history" argument, too. It's sensationalist and by two of the most common metrics, false: * By market capitalization they've been the biggest in only three quarters in history (most recent), all of which are smaller than other companies in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_capitalization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_... * By revenue there are many, many non-Exxon (i.e. oil?) companies bigger than Apple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue
hrktb 16y ago
>Regardless, I think your exhibit is more easily explained by Apple understanding exactly who is likely to spend money and making them want to be their customers. It's slightly different from the iTunes situation, but the same case can be made for Mobile me services. On any iOS device you won't be able to access mobile me (mail, calendar, address book, gallery) through the browser, you have to set it up locally and use the native applications. Mobile me is for people who by definition spent money upfront on the service, and people using iOS devices are the customers. So far it's been a pita to deal with their lack of support for mobile safari access.
donaq 16y ago
Really? I'm a linux user, but I bought an OpenMoko phone despite knowing it's pretty much going to be a paperweight. I bought an ugly keychain from RMS when he was in KL. I own a couple of Android phones. I could have saved some money on my Milestone if I'd gotten an iPhone on the cheap from my carrier and then sold it to offset my Milestone purchase, but I opted not to put more money in the Apple coffers (it was right after that fiasco about them dictating what languages you could use to develop for their app store and I was pissed). I am not tight-fisted, but I am pretty idealistic about who I am supporting with my purchases. I have two close friends who use primarily linux and they're both pretty generous. Both of them also own iPhones, incidentally. My anecdotal evidence against yours.
wladimir 16y ago
1) I don't know about Mac, but most windows users I know pirated a lot of their software. Isn't that just as tight-fisted? 2) There is not much commercial software for sale for Linux at all, so I guess there is a chicken and egg problem. 3) Of course you will sell less Linux copies of a piece of software. There are less Linux users. But to say Linux users are comparatively tight-fisted compared to users of other OSes, I'm not sure how you come up with that, Personnally, I'd buy a lot more games if they simply worked in Ubuntu... And if iTunes worked on Linux I'd buy more music there.

fryguy 16y ago

Exhibit B: In order to do things with your iPhone (like download podcasts, or update firmware), you need to plug it in to your computer and have it do a sync. The phone is on the internet, why do you need to plug it in? Google got this completely right on their phone in that everything syncs to "the cloud." I'm not saying android is perfect, but that is one aspect that's better about it.

alok-g 16y ago
My personal plight is the opposite -- In order to do things with Android, you need to sync to the cloud. Plugging it to the computer is not enough.
- ryandvm 16y ago
  That's absurd. How difficult is it to connect your wifi-capable, smartphone to the Internet?
  - alok-g 16y ago
    Connecting it to internet is not the issue. The issue is that there are features on the phone that have been artificially rendered unusable without syncing with Google. Just for example, you cannot create a new entry in Google's Calendar app without adding a Google account for syncing. It further seems that Google has even restricted the APIs beneath so the third-party developers cannot populate the calendar app using data from Outlook. You must have a Google account added to the Calendar app. Because of this limitation, developers have to build their own app for calendar to support Outlook sync without Google account. Likewise, I have found it often difficult to add apps to Android without using Android Market (which requires signing into Google Account). ADB works fine, but then it is generally hard to find APK file to begin with.
wvenable 16y ago
My parents just purchased a laptop; they're not really "computer people" but it's hard to get by without one these days. They might have been better off with an iPad but they could never use it because it requires an existing computer to work. My daughter got an iPod touch for Christmas and I was shocked that it's just a useless brick until connected to a computer. I had to bring her laptop to Christmas (and hide it) so she could use her shinny new toy once it was out of the package.