3 ms·

Well, Apple practically invented that concept in personal devices. Before the iPhone sideloading apps and owning your device was the norm.

cooldeal 16y ago
That doesn't mean Apple should get 30% of all money that flows by their devices like Apple seems to think, enforced via DRM. That'll be a bit like the ARPA/Vint Cerf asking 30% of all e-commerce revenue that flows over the net and Tim Berners Lee for all things over HTTP traffic. After all, they invented it, right? Comcast spent the money to wire through the last mile, they feel they deserve some of the money that Google, Amazon, Netflix are making, net neutrality notwithstanding. Do you agree?
- shareme 16y ago
  If Comcast want sot pay all the CDN fees that Amazon, YouTube, etc pay than by all means..in fact exactly that has been suggested to comcast..by a pioneer Internet Video person named Mark Cuban..notice Comcast never ever responds directly to that suggestion..
- bradleyland 16y ago
  > That'll be a bit like the ARPA/Vint Cerf asking 30% of all e-commerce revenue that flows over the net and Tim Berners Lee for all things over HTTP traffic. After all, they invented it, right? It was their decision to go open. Maybe not directly in both cases, and one could argue that Time Berners-Lee didn't really know that what he started in 1980 would turn out to be the World Wide Web. He set out to solve a problem that is tangential to the purpose of the WWW at large, but that's besides the point. There has never been shortage of companies who set out to create proprietary network protocols and document creation/collaboration tools; and they did. Many still exist today. The openness of TCP/IP and HTTP were prerequisites to their widespread adoption. That is, the WWW we know today could not exist on proprietary protocols because the very concept is built on layers of open interchange. There are significant conceptual differences between networking and computing platforms though. At least currently. > Comcast spent the money to wire through the last mile, they feel they deserve some of the money that Google, Amazon, Netflix are making, net neutrality notwithstanding. Do you agree? In order for any carrier to deliver to the last mile, they must obtain public land-use rights (right-of-way and utility poles), and are therefore regulated (and should be) to make sure they don't abuse public resources. I can create an open competitor to any iOS device tomorrow without using limited public resources. I cannot enter the carrier market without significant use of limited public resources. There is no parallel here. Apple created the iOS platform as a closed, proprietary, curated, walled garden from the very beginning. Remember when you couldn't build native iOS apps? Yet this thread is opened with the argument that "developers and users both want the full capability of the device to be theirs". I don't think you can lump developers and users in as one. iOS devices are selling at a startling rate despite arguments that open is better. Stop and consider for a moment that maybe we're the ones who are out of touch with what users want. The numbers certainly appear to support that position. The answer, in my mind, is not to bully Apple in to opening their platform. Quite the contrary. So far, all the whining and complaining has done is push Apple to open their platform "just enough". Just enough is figurative, because by any literal measure Apple is killing it. They're making billions. The answer is to leave Apple to their own devices and focus on your own solution. If you believe Android is the solution, pick up a book on Android development and get to work on apps that rock. Don't focus on killing iOS, focus on killing period.
  - recoiledsnake 16y ago
    >Apple created the iOS platform as a closed, proprietary, curated, walled garden from the very beginning. What about this new rule about subscriptions then? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021902399.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02... http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209580/Apple_s_new_App_Store_rules_affect_Amazon_s_Kindle http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209580/Apple_s_new_A... >iOS devices are selling at a startling rate despite arguments that open is better.Stop and consider for a moment that maybe we're the ones who are out of touch with what users want. The numbers certainly appear to support that position. Same argument can be made about the Windows monopoly. After all, people seem to buy it right? How many users know about how and why Readability was rejected from the App Store? http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ How many users know that the Reader feature in Safari was done using OSS source code taken from Readability? How many users know about Apple rejecting Pulitzer prize winning author's app? How many users know about Apple rejected a magazine app because it was an Android magazine? However, the bigger failing is the failure to recognize these even among technical people, most of whom seem to have something akin to devotion for Apple. No wonder Gruber's posts are so popular here.
    - bradleyland 16y ago
      > What about this new rule about subscriptions then? I think it sucks. I think it reflects a narcissistic view of the company and their platform. I think it's bad for innovation on the iOS platform. I wrote about it on my blog too [1], but so what? Users don't care about that either, apparently. Interesting that you'd say that about Gruber, because the majority of the time I've seen his posts show up here, he gets lynched. Please don't confuse my remarks with saying that Apple is "right" in any greater sense than that they're making a lot of money. The problem is, users aren't asking questions about what's right, but that's nothing new. If we want an open platform to be widely accepted, it has to deliver what users want, not what we (geeks) want, and it won't sell based on any higher "principles". > However, the bigger failing is the failure to recognize these even among technical people, most of whom seem to have something akin to devotion for Apple. You'll make as much headway fighting against this (devotion to a product) as you will fighting religion. As one of the greatest marketers I ever met once told me, "No one but schools and universities ever made any money trying to teach a customer anything." His point is that buyers are just as self-centered as Apple. They're not interested in being taught why they want something; they want whatever scratches their itch. Some people are interested in what's "right", but for most people, it never crosses their mind. I also reject the notion that this is any sort of "failing" on the part of someone who buys an Apple device. Business isn't always quid pro quo. I still assert that Apple wears their intention on their sleeve. If you don't like what they're doing, you shouldn't buy their products. 1 - http://www.bradlanders.com/2011/02/21/its-not-greed-its-narcissism/ http://www.bradlanders.com/2011/02/21/its-not-greed-its-narc...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

cooldeal 16y ago

That doesn't mean Apple should get 30% of all money that flows by their devices like Apple seems to think, enforced via DRM. That'll be a bit like the ARPA/Vint Cerf asking 30% of all e-commerce revenue that flows over the net and Tim Berners Lee for all things over HTTP traffic. After all, they invented it, right? Comcast spent the money to wire through the last mile, they feel they deserve some of the money that Google, Amazon, Netflix are making, net neutrality notwithstanding. Do you agree?

shareme 16y ago
If Comcast want sot pay all the CDN fees that Amazon, YouTube, etc pay than by all means..in fact exactly that has been suggested to comcast..by a pioneer Internet Video person named Mark Cuban..notice Comcast never ever responds directly to that suggestion..
bradleyland 16y ago
> That'll be a bit like the ARPA/Vint Cerf asking 30% of all e-commerce revenue that flows over the net and Tim Berners Lee for all things over HTTP traffic. After all, they invented it, right? It was their decision to go open. Maybe not directly in both cases, and one could argue that Time Berners-Lee didn't really know that what he started in 1980 would turn out to be the World Wide Web. He set out to solve a problem that is tangential to the purpose of the WWW at large, but that's besides the point. There has never been shortage of companies who set out to create proprietary network protocols and document creation/collaboration tools; and they did. Many still exist today. The openness of TCP/IP and HTTP were prerequisites to their widespread adoption. That is, the WWW we know today could not exist on proprietary protocols because the very concept is built on layers of open interchange. There are significant conceptual differences between networking and computing platforms though. At least currently. > Comcast spent the money to wire through the last mile, they feel they deserve some of the money that Google, Amazon, Netflix are making, net neutrality notwithstanding. Do you agree? In order for any carrier to deliver to the last mile, they must obtain public land-use rights (right-of-way and utility poles), and are therefore regulated (and should be) to make sure they don't abuse public resources. I can create an open competitor to any iOS device tomorrow without using limited public resources. I cannot enter the carrier market without significant use of limited public resources. There is no parallel here. Apple created the iOS platform as a closed, proprietary, curated, walled garden from the very beginning. Remember when you couldn't build native iOS apps? Yet this thread is opened with the argument that "developers and users both want the full capability of the device to be theirs". I don't think you can lump developers and users in as one. iOS devices are selling at a startling rate despite arguments that open is better. Stop and consider for a moment that maybe we're the ones who are out of touch with what users want. The numbers certainly appear to support that position. The answer, in my mind, is not to bully Apple in to opening their platform. Quite the contrary. So far, all the whining and complaining has done is push Apple to open their platform "just enough". Just enough is figurative, because by any literal measure Apple is killing it. They're making billions. The answer is to leave Apple to their own devices and focus on your own solution. If you believe Android is the solution, pick up a book on Android development and get to work on apps that rock. Don't focus on killing iOS, focus on killing period.
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  >Apple created the iOS platform as a closed, proprietary, curated, walled garden from the very beginning. What about this new rule about subscriptions then? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/19/AR2011021902399.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02... http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209580/Apple_s_new_App_Store_rules_affect_Amazon_s_Kindle http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209580/Apple_s_new_A... >iOS devices are selling at a startling rate despite arguments that open is better.Stop and consider for a moment that maybe we're the ones who are out of touch with what users want. The numbers certainly appear to support that position. Same argument can be made about the Windows monopoly. After all, people seem to buy it right? How many users know about how and why Readability was rejected from the App Store? http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/ How many users know that the Reader feature in Safari was done using OSS source code taken from Readability? How many users know about Apple rejecting Pulitzer prize winning author's app? How many users know about Apple rejected a magazine app because it was an Android magazine? However, the bigger failing is the failure to recognize these even among technical people, most of whom seem to have something akin to devotion for Apple. No wonder Gruber's posts are so popular here.
  - bradleyland 16y ago
    > What about this new rule about subscriptions then? I think it sucks. I think it reflects a narcissistic view of the company and their platform. I think it's bad for innovation on the iOS platform. I wrote about it on my blog too [1], but so what? Users don't care about that either, apparently. Interesting that you'd say that about Gruber, because the majority of the time I've seen his posts show up here, he gets lynched. Please don't confuse my remarks with saying that Apple is "right" in any greater sense than that they're making a lot of money. The problem is, users aren't asking questions about what's right, but that's nothing new. If we want an open platform to be widely accepted, it has to deliver what users want, not what we (geeks) want, and it won't sell based on any higher "principles". > However, the bigger failing is the failure to recognize these even among technical people, most of whom seem to have something akin to devotion for Apple. You'll make as much headway fighting against this (devotion to a product) as you will fighting religion. As one of the greatest marketers I ever met once told me, "No one but schools and universities ever made any money trying to teach a customer anything." His point is that buyers are just as self-centered as Apple. They're not interested in being taught why they want something; they want whatever scratches their itch. Some people are interested in what's "right", but for most people, it never crosses their mind. I also reject the notion that this is any sort of "failing" on the part of someone who buys an Apple device. Business isn't always quid pro quo. I still assert that Apple wears their intention on their sleeve. If you don't like what they're doing, you shouldn't buy their products. 1 - http://www.bradlanders.com/2011/02/21/its-not-greed-its-narcissism/ http://www.bradlanders.com/2011/02/21/its-not-greed-its-narc...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]