I want to share a small story, to show that it's not purely religion/ philosophy when I take issue with Apples barbed wired walled garden.
My dad has an iPhone. He also has a website and email system I set up for his small company. When Google introduced the ability to run email etc. for small businesses, I moved over to this nice free platform. However, when Google hosts mail for a foreign domain, you can not use the standard gmail gateway mail.google.com, hence the Google app on the iPhone was not an option. You also can't use the build in IMAP application because it simply lacks the advanced settings for ports and security required by Google. So I though he'll just use the browser, but no... apparently some bug in Safari refuses cookies from gmail [http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Google+Mobile/thread? tid=5c4adf3dffe207e9&hl=en] (yes cookies and javascript is enabled). Wanting to simply install another browser, I leaned that apparently Apple do not allow whatever they define as "duplicate functionality". That's what pushed me over the edge. Again I ask, why is it ok when Apple does this while Microsoft would've been subpoenaed from left and right? /Casper On Feb 15, 1:40 pm, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd concur -- I don't get the Posse letting Apple off the hook here. > > Apple is not evil for being closed-source -- and they do have more > compelling UX / products than competitors. > > However, Apple is, if not evil, a significant force against the greater > good -- and clearly could care less. > > The whole "walled garden" market approach of video game consoles is a > problem for both developers and consumers. Having to pay to get in is > bad. Having to sign an NDA once you've seen the SDK/APIs is worse. > Having to develop an application first and then beg for permission to > release it on the device only to have Apple reject it for any reason at > all takes the cake, though. > > For video game consoles, one can just ignore that market space as a > developer and be happy with whatever one /can /buy as a consumer. For a > device that may replace the home computer in a good number of > households, however, Apple's highly walled garden is a huge issue. > Developers are totally subservient to Apple and the consumer only gets > to use their device as Apple sees fit. That's not a world I want to see > as either a developer or a consumer. > > -- > Jess Holle > > On 2/15/2010 2:39 AM, Casper Bang wrote: > > > +1. I have to say I do find it mildly amusing to be listening to a > > Java podcast, where the choice/openness moniker is often invoked, and > > then listen to this. Well respected developers by you guys, i.e. Josh > > Marinacci, have called Apple out on this [http://bit.ly/EvIl] yet you > > see no evil. I suppose one must attribute this to the power of their > > brand as well as their influential disciple (David Pogue etc.). > > Usability and polish aside, what exactly makes Apple different and > > less evil than say Microsoft - other than the typical appliance > > argument? > > > /Casper > > > On Feb 15, 8:50 am, Reinier Zwitserloot<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> TLDR: Rewrote (and dare I say improved) on this little rant for my > >> blog:http://zwitserloot.com/2010/02/15/apple-is-evi-well-no-but-perhaps-sh... > >> - for those interested. > > >> On Feb 15, 5:33 am, Reinier Zwitserloot<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> There's a fairly long spiel on podcast 297 about why the iPad isn't > >>> "evil". I got the impression none of the posse understand what's at > >>> stake here. I'll be brief - if you think this stuff is interesting and/ > >>> or important, search the blogsphere, you'll have _plenty_ to read. > >>> (spoiler: You can't sign the NDA you need to agree to do become an SDK > >>> developer until 18. Apple is morally in the wrong for not considering > >>> this). > > >>> Those who have some reservations about the iPad usually foresee a > >>> great future for the device. I know the standard sales pitch is for it > >>> to be a 'third device', but I think that's just shortsighted. What > >>> would your average family need to do that the iPad cannot do (let's > >>> make a few provisos, such as a way to sync phones and cameras to an > >>> ipad)? Play really complex games? Sure, but, you'll probably buy a > >>> games console and not a PC to fill that niche. Programming? This is > >>> about people who are just tinkering about before they actually realize > >>> they'd even want to try programming. What else is there? Serious work, > >>> spending many hours behind the screen? Working stiffs (and > >>> programmers :P) will do that, but why would a family need to consider > >>> that? Also, there's the keyboard dock. Even Mac OS X is so complicated > >>> my parents just don't understand it. They've got 8 screens worth of > >>> apps on their iPhones though, and I never showed them anything for it, > >>> whereas I try to explain their macbook to them every time I'm over. > > >>> But therein lies a problem. Game consoles are already closed NDA- > >>> protected fiefdoms, and the iPad is no different. > > >>> Joe specifically said: Just get the SDK - but that costs money, isn't > >>> all that great for tinkering (you don't put $99 up front for a whim, > >>> and the tools aren't made to just screw about for a bit. It's not like > >>> apple also ships a logo-like environment so kids can learn to program > >>> too, and there's no way to make something like this either, as you'd > >>> either break the NDA or you'll run afoul of the app store policies), > >>> and you HAVE TO BE 18 YEARS OLD! I was less than half that age when I > >>> wrote my first (ridiculously simple and juvenile) program. > >>> Nevertheless, it was a program. > > >>> Apple is a ground-breaking company that is in the business of > >>> redefining how the world interacts with automated systems. If you want > >>> to be in that kind of visionary position, you have to think of this > >>> stuff, and I'm very disappointed that they either haven't considered > >>> this, or did, and decided not to care about it. They don't have to > >>> open up the platform much to solve this issue. By relaxing the rules > >>> on apps that themselves also run apps just a little, you could make > >>> awesome programming environments almost anybody can tinker around > >>> with, it would turn the iPad from a force of evil into a force of > >>> good, as far as increasing the pool of technical creative people is > >>> concerned. > > >>> *THAT* is why apple is morally on shaky ground. Which, in the modern > >>> age, needs to be written as "apple is EEEEVIL!" because headlines > >>> always ridiculously overstate everything in a silly grab for > >>> attention. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
