4 ms·

>Apple created the iOS platform as a closed, proprietary, curated, walled garden from the very beginning. What about this new rule about subscriptions then? h

>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...

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...