Blog comments are a horrible idea. Why should some random schmuck be able to attach any random rant to a polished piece of literature? (Not that I'm saying this article is, but there are a lot of great blogs with horrible comments.)
If you want people to care what you think, you should have to earn that; you shouldn't be able to piggyback off of someone else's work. IMHO.
(A discussion site is a whole other ballgame, however. The point is precisely to read other people's opinions, even though you shouldn't care about them. Discussion sites, I like... it seems.)
The main reason Apple would never have this 'unknown sources' option is that it opens up the device to alternative app stores and opens revenue streams they don't control. Too bad, because that would be awesome ;)
I agree with the perception argument, for what it's worth. My parents are a good example, still refusing to buy macs because "it's a closed system where you have to buy everything from Apple"... They still harbour the impression that if you buy a mac, you can only buy hard drives, screens, mice, etc from Apple.
Please downvote, if you must, but after reading DF for more than a year now, this I feel to be true:
Gruber is an Apple sucker-up--apologist--fanboy. And the majority of his writing is in that theme.
Edit: an attempt at infusing relevance, instead of pure vitriol.
I kind of like Gruber. He looks good when compared to the really hardcore Apple fanbois. Jobs' "insightful and not negative" characterization captures Gruber perfectly.
I think he has had a bit too much Kool-Aid, but he is nowhere near the LD50 yet.
I have commented similarly and more conservatively of a similar opinion of Gruber on the last several high brow articles that have made it to HN. It's really become pathetic. I mean, it started with valid points but then he started sticking his nose in crummy decisions Apple had made just to defend them.
It's really just annoying to see it happening because its the same illogical crap that so many people spout that I write off as being the opinion of "just another fanboy". Dunna if I have the heart to call Gruber that, but jesus
By now, Gruber has an awful lot invested in Apple. He has managed to carve out a clear niche as a professional Apple opinionator (aside: I have now idea how Gruber makes his living, or whether Daring Fireball generates any income).
Between his firm position as the third-party go-to guy for Apple-related commentary, his inside connections in Cupertino, and the complimentary name-dropping from Steve Jobs himself, Gruber has a lot to lose by burning bridges.
Right now he's an embedded correspondent, but with one wrong move, he could easily end up frozen out like Geraldo Rivera.
Those connections and bona fides render him an interested party, and that interest is going to lead him toward certain opinions and away from others.
I'm not suggesting he never criticizes Apple, by the way. Constructive criticism is, after all, a crucial part of loyalty; and pointing out flaws around the margins lends him a sheen of objectivity that adds verisimilitude to his cheerleading. E.g. Apple needs to be more consistent in how the app approval process is applied (though the process is good in principal).
Well, sort of. You can still only play music and movies through iTunes, and you can only do it in formats supported by iTunes. You are not allowed to create a third party music or video player, which effectively means that even these things are a lot more closed than they are on the desktop (or android, palm, etc.).
Quite true; ultimately, open vs. closed is a complex spectrum, not a binary true/false. Apple has earned a reputation of being completely closed, to the point that I still hear people express surprise at, say, Macs opening Word docs from a PC.
People think Apple is completely closed because they can't open a proprietary binary format produced by a closed-source Microsoft Windows application on it?
By the same reasoning, my Ubuntu Linux installation is closed because it doesn't - as far as I'm aware - have a way of opening Apple's proprietary Keynote format. ;-)
Proprietary? It's a renamed .tar.gz file containing any resources used inside the presentation and an XML file describing it's layout. And yes, I noticed the ;).
Has it? Apple's move to the exceptionally closed has only proved profitable in handheld devices and as these devices become more powerful it's going to stagnate like the Mac system.
Apples complete refusal to implement Flash is a prime example of this. They want to lock their users into paying for games that they can play freely online if only they could use flash.
With the Dell Streak expected to have flash support and almost as powerful CPU as many netbooks, Apple is already falling out of the market. Smart phones are taking the step to mini-tablet PC's and Apple is vehemently opposing the steps necessary to keep it competitive.
It's a shitty business model; Apple just deployed it where it doesn't make a blind bit of difference . . . until now.
They want to lock their users into paying for games that
they can play freely online if only they could use flash.
How many examples of such games can you provide? I mean those who can be played on touchscreen without a mouse and a keyboard. Apple must be making ton of money with their native equivalents on iP*, right?
With the Dell Streak expected to have flash support and
almost as powerful CPU as many netbooks, Apple is already
falling out of the market
Yeah sure, people bought 2 000 000 iPads in two months but now Apple will suddenly lose all
that appeal to some device not in the market yet.
To be quite honest, if Apple added such an option to install your own apps I would shut up. Comparing someone who is clearly clueless and thinks that the iPad can't read PDFs to programmers and developers who actually make apps is kind of unfair, and to say they never pay attention to the facts and would just ignore the change anyway is silly.
An option to install your own apps would dramatically increase piracy, which would harm not just the App Store but developers too. The lesson is clear from the game industry's PC/console battle, which consoles have won in large part due to even tighter restrictions than those imposed by the App Store.
If Apple had been more open -- truly inclusive, not just for show -- about getting software onto their ultraportables, the bogus perception that Apple is a fully walled garden wouldn't exist.
Instead, they pissed off enough internet loudmouths to shout down an air raid siren, dicking around and flipping and flopping and never giving a clue as to what the fuck is actually going on behind the curtain.
If the result is misinformation hurting their bottom line, good. Maybe then they'll listen.
I find it interesting, now that the App Store is an established brand and venue, that Apple could add this "enable installation from anywhere" option. If this had been present at the time the App Store had launched, developers would have tried to sell their apps from their own websites, and used grunkly stuff in the system they shouldn't have been touching. Can you imagine Adobe releasing Acrobat Reader for iPhone that used some kind of Adobe installer and updater?
But now that everyone knows to go to the App Store by default, and developers are climbing over each other to get stuff in there and meet Apple's requirements, I think it's a safer move to allow third-party stuff. The people who are serious and want to make money or spread their brand will still be targeting the App Store, and the people doing things on the margins get the choice put whatever they want on their phone.
I would like to install Google Voice, as a native app, on my iPhone. Without jail breaking it. And sorry, but the HTML5 version of GV is just not that great.
Somebody please explain to me how this issue of mine is only a matter of "perception."
Not saying I disagree, but check out VoiceCentral Black Swan. It's a web app that links to Google Voice, but very much feels like a native app. Much better than the Google website.
I clicked through to Eric Meyer's essay, in which he argued that the iTunes Store is a store, which necessarily entails selectivity over what brands and models to sell.
Where Meyer's analogy breaks down is in the fact that when you're trying to get apps for your iPhone/iPod/iPad, you're only allowed to shop at one store.
He tries to blow this off by pointing out that the Apple platform isn't the only mobile platform in town, but that misses the point.
The Big Automakers once tried to demand that people who bought cars were required to take those cars back to the dealer for servicing and add-ons. The automakers argued that this was the only way they could guarantee a quality driving experience.
It required legal challenges and government intervention to ensure the car owner's right to decide where and by whom to service and customize their own vehicle.
iPhone OS’s status as the best platform for completely open mobile web content.
Wait, what? What exactly makes the iPhone OS the best platform for "completely open mobile web content"? The differences between Android and iPhone OS for open web content should be pretty marginal -- which makes it a hard thing to brag about convincingly.
35 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 98.5 ms ] threadIf you want people to care what you think, you should have to earn that; you shouldn't be able to piggyback off of someone else's work. IMHO.
(A discussion site is a whole other ballgame, however. The point is precisely to read other people's opinions, even though you shouldn't care about them. Discussion sites, I like... it seems.)
Edit: an attempt at infusing relevance, instead of pure vitriol.
I think he has had a bit too much Kool-Aid, but he is nowhere near the LD50 yet.
It's really just annoying to see it happening because its the same illogical crap that so many people spout that I write off as being the opinion of "just another fanboy". Dunna if I have the heart to call Gruber that, but jesus
Between his firm position as the third-party go-to guy for Apple-related commentary, his inside connections in Cupertino, and the complimentary name-dropping from Steve Jobs himself, Gruber has a lot to lose by burning bridges.
Right now he's an embedded correspondent, but with one wrong move, he could easily end up frozen out like Geraldo Rivera.
Those connections and bona fides render him an interested party, and that interest is going to lead him toward certain opinions and away from others.
I'm not suggesting he never criticizes Apple, by the way. Constructive criticism is, after all, a crucial part of loyalty; and pointing out flaws around the margins lends him a sheen of objectivity that adds verisimilitude to his cheerleading. E.g. Apple needs to be more consistent in how the app approval process is applied (though the process is good in principal).
By the same reasoning, my Ubuntu Linux installation is closed because it doesn't - as far as I'm aware - have a way of opening Apple's proprietary Keynote format. ;-)
Apples complete refusal to implement Flash is a prime example of this. They want to lock their users into paying for games that they can play freely online if only they could use flash.
With the Dell Streak expected to have flash support and almost as powerful CPU as many netbooks, Apple is already falling out of the market. Smart phones are taking the step to mini-tablet PC's and Apple is vehemently opposing the steps necessary to keep it competitive.
It's a shitty business model; Apple just deployed it where it doesn't make a blind bit of difference . . . until now.
Perception indeed.
also apple does host a list of webapps at www.apple.com/webapps
Instead, they pissed off enough internet loudmouths to shout down an air raid siren, dicking around and flipping and flopping and never giving a clue as to what the fuck is actually going on behind the curtain.
If the result is misinformation hurting their bottom line, good. Maybe then they'll listen.
But now that everyone knows to go to the App Store by default, and developers are climbing over each other to get stuff in there and meet Apple's requirements, I think it's a safer move to allow third-party stuff. The people who are serious and want to make money or spread their brand will still be targeting the App Store, and the people doing things on the margins get the choice put whatever they want on their phone.
Somebody please explain to me how this issue of mine is only a matter of "perception."
Just don't expect support for the codecs to play them.
Where Meyer's analogy breaks down is in the fact that when you're trying to get apps for your iPhone/iPod/iPad, you're only allowed to shop at one store.
He tries to blow this off by pointing out that the Apple platform isn't the only mobile platform in town, but that misses the point.
The Big Automakers once tried to demand that people who bought cars were required to take those cars back to the dealer for servicing and add-ons. The automakers argued that this was the only way they could guarantee a quality driving experience.
It required legal challenges and government intervention to ensure the car owner's right to decide where and by whom to service and customize their own vehicle.
I found this observation coming from daringfireball rather ironic.
Wait, what? What exactly makes the iPhone OS the best platform for "completely open mobile web content"? The differences between Android and iPhone OS for open web content should be pretty marginal -- which makes it a hard thing to brag about convincingly.