On May 11, 10:32 am, Martin Sturm <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
The same argument applies to privacy, and we all agree that the average populace not caring about it does NOT mean it's irrelevant, it just means the average populace is clueless in this regard and if they only knew better they'd care. And that's their mistake, or possibly our mistake for not making clear to those users that in the long run it's going to cause them hardship. It's tough to do this though in our current "soundbite" culture. The things they will be missing are also not that obvious - it's fantastic apps that were never even written for fear of getting shot down by apple for yet another completely unintelligible reason. It's a slowly dwindling decline amongst independent app developers for lack of the rock star successes. Note how analogous to line of reasoning is to e.g. the crazy libel laws in the UK. The average populace doesn't care but that's because they ARENT seeing the great articles that were never even written for fear of getting frivolously sued for libel. There's a whole host of rules where this line of reasoning applies. The one mistake you can make here is concluding the rule is fine because the populace doesn't care. The iPhone model is essentially a 'share cropping' model. You play on the market by the fiat of apple, and they can pull that fiat at any time. This means that if someone strikes true gold with a fantastic idea, apple will simply release their own app and shut yours down. The same thing has already happened with another sharecropping model: Twitter clients. Twitter has bought tweetie and is taking over the iPhone and Android twitter client market. Makers of iPhone twitter clients that aren't called Loren Brichter and now royally screwed. Imagine if you will this concept applied to the internet. Let's say microsoft had extended IE5 back in 1999 with a few more expansions, more aggressively developed versions for all possible other operating systems, and added an extra 'security layer' that also allowed them to deny access to any site because the IE6 terms of service says they can. All the clients are ecstatic about their streamlined experience, unbridled security and rapid development of new features now that microsoft has turned into the all-powerful 'benevolent' dictator of the web world. Now in this hypothetical world google comes along and shows the world (and microsoft) that they were wrong about search, and that there IS lots of value (and money) in offering an excellent search engine. The cash is rolling in, so much so that at some point microsoft offers to buy them. Except this time, in this hypothetical world, google would take it. Because they know full well what will happen if they don't: Microsoft finds a reason to shut them down, or simply remakes the product and simply obliterates the google market share by e.g. including a search bar that only goes to their search engine. We'd never have seen the genius of Brin, Buchheit and Page applied to anything other than search. The world would be a much worse place. Even if, in the short run, that microsoft-run hegemony was (much) better for a while. Such a model is singularly _FANTASTIC_ for the runners of the farm. However, for the long term future of Computer Science it is rather obviously not that great. With sufficient competition from the android and hopefully the WebOS front, I don't think Mac Os Touch will go down in flames at all. Instead, apple will respond to market forces and cede some control of the future-where-iPod/ad/hone-is-great and trading it for increasing the odds that this future will come to pass. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why competition is glorious. They don't have to cede much to avert this gloomy future. > 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. > 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. > > > 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. > > -- > Martin > > -- > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- 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.
