On 5/11/2010 3:32 AM, Martin Sturm wrote:
On May 11, 6:19 am, Jess Holle<[email protected]> wrote:
Between the AT&T lock-in for customers and the franchise development
model (with extremely limited, "hostage status" rights for developers),
I think the iPhone *should* go down in flames, despite any user
interface wonders it delivers. Whether it will do so, is another
question entirely, but I think it currently stands for evil like few
other things in computing today. Even the Windows mono-culture in
business does not demand that all developers sign away all their rights
for the privilege of developing on Windows!
You are now only looking from the perspective of a developer. I have
yet to find a single non-developer who cares about the vendor lock-in
which currently applies to iPhone development.
Many care about AT&T (carrier) lock in -- it's just a question of
whether they put up with it.
The only thing some
people find annoying is the fact that some applications are not
available, but most of the time they even don't know why that is the
case.
Agreed on that account. Developers shouldn't stand for the hostage
franchise model. If developers en masse demanded a better model, they'd
get one.
The main reason why Android is currently out selling the iPhone, is
because (at least in the Netherlands) there are now Android phones
which are (much) cheaper than the iPhone and provide a much better
user experience than, for example, most Nokia or Sony/Ericsson phones.
Additionally, Android phones are not restricted to a single telco (T-
Mobile in the Netherlands) which also is an important purchase
consideration for many people.
According to the article, one of the main reasons in the US is that
Android is available for multiple carriers.
A healthy marketplace of online app stores would be an
easier and better solution, though -- Apple could then deny anyone for
any cause and another app store would simply sell your app instead.
Apple could similarly try to take a bigger cut of the profit -- and
another app store would undercut them.
I really find it hard to see the benefits for the end user of having
multiple appstores. If that would be the case, you would have to check
several 'app stores' in order to find out if there are new interesting
applications. Of course, it would be nice for developers who doesn't
like the Apple regime, but for the end user I, the only benefit I see
is the possibility of lower prices for apps (but currently that isn't
really an issue), but that does not compensate the downsides of
multiple app stores.
Point taken -- to a point -- but that means not having any app at all in
a category whenever Apple just doesn't feel like allowing it (e.g.
Google Latitude) or feels it does not meet their whitewashed world
vision (e.g. the Pulitzer prize winning cartoonist whose app was
disallowed until the adverse press coverage Apple got for disallowing a
Pulitzer prize winning cartoonist from their platform).
Having multiple stores can be a /bit /confusing -- though that's where
good cross-site search engines come in handy. Given a good search
engine across the stores having multiple stores becomes almost a
non-issue for ease of use and ensures healthy competition in place of
monopoly abuse.
Note that even with the iPod, one can buy and install songs from many
different music stores. Apple just sets up a path of least resistance
and best integration for their store and iTunes so that most users don't
bother with anything else. The iPhone and iPad take away even this
level of competition and choice.
--
Jess Holle
--
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.
