3 ms·

2) Apple will start to abandon their restrictive “Made for iPod”(TM) program and adopt the Arduino in some way for accessory development Phil's a cool, intelli

by kwantam 15y ago

2) Apple will start to abandon their restrictive “Made for iPod”(TM) program and adopt the Arduino in some way for accessory development Phil's a cool, intelligent guy, but this statement pegs my meter somewhere between "excessive optimism" and "ridiculous Apple fanboyism". Apple, the infamous UX control freak, will give up the control (and revenue) associated with the MFi program in favor of allowing their users to customize their experience? What's next, Windows 8 will run an OpenBSD kernel? Sorry, perhaps that last was excessively sarcastic, but let's be realistic here: one of Apple's fundamental properties is its fanatical control over every aspect of the way that users interface with the device, directly or indirectly. They will never give this up. MS/NOK (funny how, at least in my mental model, they're one entity in the phone market now) and (especially) HP/Palm should be looking at this and thinking about doing the same. RIM probably doesn't care because their userbase doesn't.

jerryr 15y ago
I thought it seemed a bit optimistic as well. It'll be interesting to see how many handset manufacturers adopt the open accessory kit or opt to omit it or otherwise lock it down--similar to those that chose to provide their own app stores (I'm under the impression that you can do this, but you lose the ability to certify your device with Google and therefore lose access to the Android marketplace, Gmail client, maps, etc., correct?). I believe manufacturers are still generally motivated to profit from their accessories' ecosystems (not that the toolkit precludes this, but it relinquishes some control they've become used to). That said, I'd love Apple to open up their accessory platform. I maintain an Apple accessory software stack that I'd love to throw on Github (frankly, I'm tired of maintaining it), but I am unable to do so due to our development agreement & the closed nature of their accessory program.

by kwantam 15y ago

jerryr 15y ago

I thought it seemed a bit optimistic as well. It'll be interesting to see how many handset manufacturers adopt the open accessory kit or opt to omit it or otherwise lock it down--similar to those that chose to provide their own app stores (I'm under the impression that you can do this, but you lose the ability to certify your device with Google and therefore lose access to the Android marketplace, Gmail client, maps, etc., correct?). I believe manufacturers are still generally motivated to profit from their accessories' ecosystems (not that the toolkit precludes this, but it relinquishes some control they've become used to). That said, I'd love Apple to open up their accessory platform. I maintain an Apple accessory software stack that I'd love to throw on Github (frankly, I'm tired of maintaining it), but I am unable to do so due to our development agreement & the closed nature of their accessory program.