Why having the Apple App Store as the only source is a bad thing....

dmccormack said:
I'm sure some do....

(Many of them were regulars on rec.aviation.*)
Click to expand...

Maybe I should put in the remarks box on my flight plan "Keep me away from bad pilots."
 
flyingcheesehead said:
... If I had to wait to upgrade to OS 4.0 because half my apps were built on Flash and it wasn't updated in time, I would be pi$$ed...
Click to expand...
If that happened you should be pi**ed at Apple, because that kind of failure necessarily requires them to break backwards compatibility across the upgrade in a manner that could break many apps. Apple already mandates compliance with their SDK interface, and rejects apps that use undocumented facilities. The flash middle-ware stuff interfaces with the iphone OS via this SDK.
By definition, they cannot possibly conform to the different human interface standards of the various platforms they're on.
Click to expand...
But that issue exists with virtually every game in the App Store. In particular, any software that uses OpenGL is going to have a UI that bears no resemblance to the standard iphone interface.
-harry
 
Greebo said:
... Microsoft got sued for telling their distributors they couldn't put non approved software (specifically, browsers) on their desktops...
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think anybody could have sued Microsoft for refusing to bundle a competing browser on a hardware platform that they had been selling themselves.
But APPLE - Apple's not even letting END USERS use non approved software. It's a MONOPOLY!
Click to expand...
This used to describe every phone. It currently describes my television, my DVR, my microwave oven, my printer, my car ...
-harry
 
mantakos said:
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think anybody could have sued Microsoft for refusing to bundle a competing browser on a hardware platform that they had been selling themselves.
Click to expand...

So if you make the hardware, you can limit what people put on "your" hardware, but if you make software that runs on the hardware, you can't limit what people put on "your" software?

This used to describe every phone. It currently describes my television, my DVR, my microwave oven, my printer, my car ...
-harry
Click to expand...

Done a lot of app dev for your printer lately? ;)
 
Greebo said:
So if you make the hardware, you can limit what people put on "your" hardware, but if you make software that runs on the hardware, you can't limit what people put on "your" software?
Click to expand...
I can certainly imagine that if Microsoft took some action to prevent Netscape from working under Windows that they'd be accused of anti-competitive practices.

In the case of Apple applying some approval process to apps installed in its store, e.g. filtering out the pr0n, it's less clear how this is anti-competitive, because those vendors and Apple aren't really competing.

But when it comes to rejecting flash-based apps, I certainly believe this to be an anti-competitive maneuver, one directed at competing smartphone systems which might benefit from the ability of third-party developers to use middleware to "code once, deploy many". Whether it's anti-competitive in a way that a judge would consider illegal, I have no idea.
Done a lot of app dev for your printer lately? ;)
Click to expand...
Well, Postscript is certainly a programming language, though using my printer to play flight simulator would probably run through a lot of paper.

In an odd "small world, full circle" thing, though, Macromedia Flash is now part of Adobe (by acquisition), and Adobe got its big start by deploying an "app" (of sorts) onto a printer, namely the Postscript interpreter/renderer that ran inside the first Apple LaserWriter.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
In an odd "small world, full circle" thing, though, Macromedia Flash is now part of Adobe (by acquisition), and Adobe got its big start by deploying an "app" (of sorts) onto a printer, namely the Postscript interpreter/renderer that ran inside the first Apple LaserWriter.
-harry
Click to expand...


Macromind became Macromedia, which was then sold or merged with Adobe?

I think at the time Adobe saw a threat to PDF from FlashPaper, and MM was also owning the Internet plugin and dev market.
 
I can certainly imagine that if Microsoft took some action to prevent Netscape from working under Windows that they'd be accused of anti-competitive practices.
Click to expand...
Oh we've been down this road before. Microsoft never prevented browsers from working under Windows. That's a very misleading distortion. It was just a pain to set up. Hell, I was using Netscape on Windows 3.1 before MS had even started developing a browser.
 
dmccormack said:
Couldn't this thread be about Garmin products? After all, they aren't "open"....
Click to expand...


Sure, why not. But it might be better in another thread.

For aviation, they're essentially a legalized monopoly due to the FAA approval process. For the non-aviation units, I think you have some flexibility in terms of being able to load datapoints, etc.
 
dmccormack said:
AOL refused to adopt industry-standard browsers until it was too late. Also, once the ease-of-access was equivalent, the market differentiator was gone.

Remember all the "Free" CDS AOL dumped everywhere?

The attraction was for folks who only had to provide name, address, CC number and go.

Prodigy tried the same schtick, so did CompuServ (IIRC).

I moved to AOL after running up hundreds in Long Distance charges in 90-91. The closest access provider was a guy running a service out of Philly (FishNet, IIRC). There was no access in Lancaster PA except the local AOL number. I needed access for FTP, so I caved.
Click to expand...

And I quit AOL about the time of Version 4 of their software. It royally messed up the computer it was one and I regarded AOL software as a virus from that date forward. I originally ran AOL on a old Mac LC III and was a beta tester for Version 2.0 of that software. Built up a lot of free connect minutes doing that, which my son burned up with unauthorized use of our AOL account. Darned kids. :D Oh well, that was almost 20 years ago. I think I'll forgive him. :D :D
 
Ghery said:
And I quit AOL about the time of Version 4 of their software. It royally messed up the computer it was one and I regarded AOL software as a virus from that date forward. I originally ran AOL on a old Mac LC III and was a beta tester for Version 2.0 of that software. Built up a lot of free connect minutes doing that, which my son burned up with unauthorized use of our AOL account. Darned kids. :D Oh well, that was almost 20 years ago. I think I'll forgive him. :D :D
Click to expand...


Oh my goodness...

An LC? That was COLOR!!!!! :eek:

I started with AOL in 87 (?) on a Mac Plus.
 
Greebo said:
When's the anti-trust lawsuit scheduled?

Seriously - Microsoft got sued for telling their distributors they couldn't put non approved software (specifically, browsers) on their desktops at the point of sale. End users were free to do so.

But APPLE - Apple's not even letting END USERS use non approved software. It's a MONOPOLY!
Click to expand...

No - You're free to go buy a mobile phone from whoever you want. Apple only manufactures one phone (Well, two for now - The 3G and the 3GS). If Apple's iPhone OS ran on 95% of the mobile phones available and they were doing what they're doing, then things might be different.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't want to use a Windows program on the Mac, I want a Mac program that follows the Apple Human Interface Guidelines. Restricting things to Cocoa Touch (iPhone OS SDK) doesn't guarantee that a developer will get it right (and one need look no further than the Opera Mini browser on the iPhone to verify that), but apps that aren't developed directly for the platform they're on are basically guaranteed to suck.
Click to expand...

The issue is not Apple enforcing compliance standards, it's Apple controlling content (either editorially or by preventing things like Google Voice from being approved). :mad3:
Further, the arguments that "all ports suck" is simply a blanket statement without justification. Let the app rankings and reviews in the App Store determine the winners and losers.

I would not have an issue with independent performance standards, especially if managed by an outside body, but making decisions based on whether Apple likes the content is not OK with me. Isn't that contrary to the whole idea of the internet? :mad2:
I'm not saying there should be a lawsuit, or that the government should get involved, I am saying I will vote with my wallet and wait for an Android tablet. :yesnod:
 
PilotAlan said:
The issue is not Apple enforcing compliance standards, it's Apple controlling content (either editorially or by preventing things like Google Voice from being approved). :mad3:
Click to expand...

No disagreement there - I think that Apple needs to smack some of their app-approval people around a little, frankly. There seem to be way to many "Oopses" where they were overzealous and then tell the developer to resubmit. I also don't understand the justification for Google Voice's rejection, but I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T had a hand in that. I also wouldn't be surprised if things loosen up a little after the iPhone is available on other carriers.

Further, the arguments that "all ports suck" is simply a blanket statement without justification. Let the app rankings and reviews in the App Store determine the winners and losers.
Click to expand...

Meh... Games are so different that I can somewhat agree that game ports are OK. Regular apps, though, must conform to the look and feel of the platform they're on to provide a good user experience. Apple's Mobile Human Interface Guidelines document is 120 pages long - They've done a great job of thinking through how every little thing should work, and the apps that conform to the HIG such as ForeFlight are a pleasure to use - Because they work just like you expect them to based on how all the other apps on your phone work, there's really no learning curve at all, and you don't even notice the app, you notice the content. That is how all software should be written, and that's how good software IS written.

When you don't write a specific version of the app for the platform you're targeting, but instead write a generic app, you're going to have an app that is either good on one platform (because you've written it as a user of that platform and make it act like that platform) or not good on any platform because you've written it to your own mind's way of thinking. Either way, it's going to suck on either all, or all but one of the mobile platforms.

Maybe I'm a software purist, but that's how it should be: Well-written software means the user shouldn't have to think about the software, they should be able to intuitively interact with the content with the software enabling that interaction rather than getting in the way.
 
wsuffa said:
So, would you buy AOL & their content/portal/software service instead of the internet driectly from cable/telco/ISP, given the choice?
Click to expand...

I don't think the parallel fits.

AOL was slow, ugly, and sucky. I tried it, back in the days when the Web was still a bit of a mystery to me. I got rid of it like a sailor with the clap, as fast as I possibly could.

Even an idiot like my grandmother-in-law can get on the internet with IE. IIRC, she actually downloaded Firefox.

What folks are talking about doing with iPhones, IMHO, rises way far above the level of a technological dumbazz accessing the internet.
 
mantakos said:
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think anybody could have sued Microsoft for refusing to bundle a competing browser on a hardware platform that they had been selling themselves.
This used to describe every phone. It currently describes my television, my DVR, my microwave oven, my printer, my car ...
-harry
Click to expand...

No, not your car, there is a huge nearly unrestricted aftermarket industry fo every car part you can imagine. Some of them may void your warranty, but the vast majority do not.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I don't think the parallel fits.

AOL was slow, ugly, and sucky. I tried it, back in the days when the Web was still a bit of a mystery to me. I got rid of it like a sailor with the clap, as fast as I possibly could.

Even an idiot like my grandmother-in-law can get on the internet with IE. IIRC, she actually downloaded Firefox.

What folks are talking about doing with iPhones, IMHO, rises way far above the level of a technological dumbazz accessing the internet.
Click to expand...

Think beyond technology to content. AOHell controlled all the content on their system (walled garden) and programs/games/email that could be used to gain access to information on their systems. They also controlled how & what you could use to gain access to the broader internet.

Content and program controls... much like Apple.
 
wsuffa said:
Think beyond technology to content. AOHell controlled all the content on their system (walled garden) and programs/games/email that could be used to gain access to information on their systems. They also controlled how & what you could use to gain access to the broader internet.

Content and program controls... much like Apple.
Click to expand...

OK, got it. But, now the parallel doesn't work because all the AOL stuff was crap. I've yet to hear anyone say, "Meh, those iPhone apps are crap."
 
flyersfan31 said:
OK, got it. But, now the parallel doesn't work because all the AOL stuff was crap. I've yet to hear anyone say, "Meh, those iPhone apps are crap."
Click to expand...

Meh, those iPhone apps are crap.

Now you have. :D
 
Meh, those iPhones are crap.

And I didn't even pay money for mine. Its still a piece.
 
The app mentioned in the original post was not the only one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042302127.html?hpid=sec-tech

Among their reasons to block new programs:

-- Letting users look up definitions of swear words.

-- Not including enough functions.

-- Duplicating Apple software's functions.

-- Letting users read a text-only copy of the Kama Sutra.

-- Advocating the "politically charged" issue of single-payer health insurance.

-- Publishing other sorts of political commentary.

-- Displaying photos of minimally attired ladies.

-- Using Apple software to show a picture of a user's Mac.

-- Using "iPhone" as the first word in an electronic book's title.

In many cases, Apple backed down after developers protested. Name-brand companies, meanwhile, have seen Apple approve titles with otherwise-blackballed features. And Apple's screening doesn't stop disappointing apps from showing up in the store.

If this conduct seems arbitrary, that's because Apple gives itself that liberty.
Click to expand...
 
flyersfan31 said:
What do they say about using "i" at the front of one's UserID????
Click to expand...

Nothing yet... :D

BTW Bill, some of that stuff - Duplicating Apple's functionality in particular - is specifically forbidden in the developer agreement, so those folks have no use b*tching IMHO. Read the fine print.
 
flyersfan31 said:
YAY government. Thanks for trying to f up something that seems to work just fine for us little people.
Click to expand...

You mean by allowing application developers to actually give you the applications that you want, and not just the filtered version that Apple thinks you want?
 
mantakos said:
Could you explain to us how this would "f up" the App Store?
Click to expand...

I think it would be a very dangerous precedent to force Apple to allow 3rd-party development tools or stores - Frankly, the "product" that is the iPhone/iPad is the entire experience, not just the box. Apple's restrictiveness can be a pain, but it also frees me from having to worry about potentially harmful apps, and it ensures that developers have access to the newest features right away.

A prime example of this - The new multitasking and other features in iPhone OS 4.0. Those who developed using Apple's tools will be able to take advantage of them from day one. Those who develop using 3rd-party tools have to first wait for those 3rd-party tools to be updated, and then update their apps - Meaning users of those apps won't be able to multitask with them, which creates a poor user experience on Apple's product. So I think they're well within their rights to do things that way.

Mostly, it's Adobe squawking about this, and they don't have a good track record of supporting new features in Apple's OS: Mac OS X came out 10 years ago, and Adobe did not release a fully compatible product for it until... LAST WEEK. :mad2:

Frankly, if you don't like it, buy an Android phone. I'll keep my iPhone. :yes:
 
I still don't get it.

Don't want to adhere to Apple's policies? Teach them a lesson: withhold your life-changing App from their universe!
 
While I also disagree that government action is required (although I'm not surprised given the "big government" attitude we now have in DC), I don't think this is ALL about the AppStore (certainly part of it is). From what I understand, complaints have been lodged by more than Adobe....

The other part is about where Apple apparently now prohibits apps from sending information to third parties (primarily advertisers) about your phone's location and certain other data. This change came about just as Apple is launching their own advertising network... that has access to the very same data that's being blocked from others. Assuming that is true, then it absolutely is an anti-trust concern.

Sure seems like Apple is becoming more like what Microsoft tried to be, except that Apple sells the hardware. Justice will look for a pattern of anticompetitive behavior - the AppStore, any advertising blockage, the Adobe issue, the content restrictions (censorship) etc all add into that picture. That's particularly true given that the mobile market is just developing.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
... Apple's restrictiveness can be a pain, but it also frees me from having to worry about potentially harmful apps...
Click to expand...
This isn't about Apple's ability to protect you from harmful apps, because Apple has chosen to restrict flash-based apps from the App Store process, where they obviously have full opportunity to vet them.
... and it ensures that developers have access to the newest features right away...
Click to expand...
No developer is required to use flash, and so developers have whatever access Apples grants them as soon as it is granted.

The argument here seems to be that Apple's anti-competitive practice of discouraging cross-platform development is necessary in order for Apple to protect their customers from the availability of less excellent software side-by-side with the software that developers produce specifically for that platform. Meanwhile, such cross-platform development would be good for everybody in the marketplace except for Apple, who needs such restrictions to help them maintain their position as market leader.

If it is "necessary" to protect users from middle-ware, then why is it necessary only on mobile, and not on the desktop as well? Why does Apple make no effort to protect their desktop users from Flash and Java? Why is this a requirement in one market but not another?
-harry
 
SCCutler said:
I still don't get it.

Don't want to adhere to Apple's policies? Teach them a lesson: withhold your life-changing App from their universe!
Click to expand...
Food tastes good and it keeps you from dying. Developers pay for food with money they earn by selling software. Software is sold to customers. Apple has the platform with all the customers.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Could you explain to us how this would "f up" the App Store?
-harry
Click to expand...

The apps work great, IMHO. If you want something else, go get something else. Apple wants to make sure everything works 100%? Fine. It's not like it's the government saying "No apps that criticize Apple allowed." If I don't like the rules I AM FREE TO MOVE!!!!! Have to give up the iPhone? Well, that's my tough luck.

It's their product. Their rules. I have no problem with that. If I did, I'd have some sort of VerizonGoogleAndroid thing.
 
Here's the word from the man himself on his reaction to all the negative guff Apple has been getting from Adobe:

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/?sr=hotnews.rss

And to all those people carping about how Apple is doing what's good for Apple - do you really think Gates had your best interests at heart when they started shipping a multi-gigbyte sized word processor?
 
mantakos said:
Food tastes good and it keeps you from dying. Developers pay for food with money they earn by selling software. Software is sold to customers. Apple has the platform with all the customers.
-harry
Click to expand...

(Spike slinks away, embarrassed that he still has a Palm Treo)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top