If Speak for Yourself had developed an app for Android they would have had none of these problems. None. Zilch. There are several markets. There are several stores. You can install standalone APKs if you like.
The nature of the platform protects you from the likes of Apple.
That there are options doesn't make Apple any more right here. I'm not saying that. But there are other platforms than Apple's closed circus. And people should consider them.
With time I hope people will see that value in an open platform. That these people, those who have their daughter threatened to be re-muted by Apple, that they still insist on using Apple's hardware is a mystery to me.
You would at least think that they saw why choosing Apple is fundamentally wrong for any person who considers himself free. If you're not free to do with your own property as you please, how much of a free being are you really?
sorry, you're missing a word there. you should be asking "name one piece of property you can use undetectably as you please without restriction", and the answer is "nearly all of them". what i do in the privacy of my own home, without affecting other people and with stuff i legally own should be unrestricted; pretty much every case in which it isn't involves a conceptual failing on the part of either the law, the entity i obtained that piece of property from, or both.
My guess is that the developers chose the IPad, the closest you can get to a "standard tablet" these days. If you watch the video of how the application works you will see that it needs a large screen so an Android phone was probably out of the question. I know that there are several Android tablets but the IPad is a better choice for a small shop with limited resources (less fragmentation and a simpler message for the customer).
>If Speak for Yourself had developed an app for Android they would have had none of these problems.
No, they would still have the same problem. Google has the killswitch ability. Amazon and Google do remove applications from the store on a regular basis for copyright violations.
EDIT: And the ability to install an APK from anywhere still doesn't mean that they'll be able to keep selling it while the court proceedings are going on. This problem isn't a technical issue. It's a legal one.
But you can still install any APK you can download. You don't even need a store. You, as a user, are protected from this modern-day corporate censorship.
And that makes the platform infinitely more attractive to anyone who values freedom.
And the ability to install an APK from anywhere
still doesn't mean that they'll be able to keep
selling it while the court proceedings are going on.
That's bullshit. Sure they can send you a DMCA take-down notice, but if it's your domain you can use it as toilet paper.
And btw, I haven't seen Google pulling Android from the market in the eve of Oracle's lawsuit. That's because you are still free to sell your products until infringement is actually proved !
Yes, but actually making that motion and convincing a judge is a lot more work than just sending a letter (to any or all of Apple/Google/Amazon/etc). That's one of the important checks and balances in the legal process that PRC was able to work around (with Apple's help).
Better yet, had it been developed as a web app they would be beholden to nobody, and it would have been cross platform. From the demonstration video, I see nothing in the app that wouldn't be easy to duplicate using web technologies. Perhaps cases like these will encourage more people to use the web as their main mobile development platform.
Yeah, that's just what I want: my ability to FUCKING SPEAK being dependent on the quality of my cellphone or Comcrap connection.
You know what? No. The web is not a computer, it is not a computing platform, it's not magical app juice that makes things native application developers have to worry about just go away. It's great at some things and remarkably, profoundly shitty at others. Quit trying to sell the snake oil that the cloud is the future of computing, and we can bin our CPUs, storage, and native code. It's not happening.
I never said that. You're providing a false dichotomy. What I want is an open source version of Speak for Yourself and the people who assert patent rights over this sort of software to go fuck themselves. That would be the best thing for kids like Maya.
Well we're in agreement about wanting it to be open source and wanting the patent holders to fuck themselves, but you're wrong about this not being possible as an HTML5 app with offline access.
Cache manifests are not guaranteed to provide much storage space and are not guaranteed to provide even permanent storage. They are not adequate to provide a full-fledged application in the absence of a network connection. Now delete this silly retort.
Its clear that Speak for Yourself need to do one thing now: build a new version of the software, as quickly as possible.
Seems to me, on the basis of the videos of the software I've casually viewed, they could do it in MOAI in a few weeks. (http://getmoai.com/)
Most of the work for a 'port' is done: the content and design of the app. If the content is well organized, they could do a cross-platform version of SfY Next-Generation (runs everywhere: win/osx/linux/ios/android/&etc.) that prevails beyond falsely imposed boundaries.
>That these people, those who have their daughter threatened to be re-muted by Apple, that they still insist on using Apple's hardware is a mystery to me.
Well off the top of my head, going on stories I've read in the past two months: The Apple app store is about 2-3x more profitable than the Android marketplace. The fragmentation of Android makes developing cool apps using new features a nightmare, as about 4% of all phones are using the most recent version of Android. The Android Marketplace has had problems with piracy and illegal app copying that aren't as bad on the Apple app store. Stories of people more willing to pay money for iOS apps.
If you really can't understand why someone would prefer one development environment over another for reasons other than "freedom" (the irony of calling developing for the whims of a fickle, fast moving market supported by a corporation you like more than another corporation's market 'free' seems to be lost on you) then I don't think you can be reasoned with.
So you say there is more money to be had on iOS. I'm sure that is nice, as long as the one ruler decides that you are permitted to operate there.
I wonder how safe it feels doing working on a platform where you know that someone else, without any justification what so ever, can pull the rug under your business and say "so be it". You know, like we read about all the time with regard to iOS. Businesses dead because Apple declared them so.
Nice.
You seem to think that when I value Android over iOS, I do so because I prefer one corporate entity over another. That would be a false assumption. I value Android because the platform is open and will never own me.
I know this because I have cloned the Android git-repo, built it and deployed the build on my phone. From open source code to a working platform which I can use.
You will have to work very hard to convince me that this isn't open, that this isn't free and that somehow my preference for this platform is entirely corporate fanboying. If you somehow see that as "cannot be reasoned with", I think you may be in need of a mirror.
Even if you were unable to fetch Android's source code, as long as Android phones allow third-party sources for software packages (including straight download from a link), then Android as a platform remains a lot more open.
But amongst all of the oohs and ahhs of the new products and updates, there was one particular announcement that sort of flew under the radar. According to Apple, it now has more than 400 million active credit card-linked iTunes accounts…
At first glance, this may not seem like a very big deal. But let’s put this into some context. Paypal, arguably the most well-known digital payment provider, had somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 million accounts as of 2011. And only around 100 million of those were active.
>If Speak for Yourself had developed an app for Android they would have had none of these problems. None. Zilch. There are several markets. There are several stores. You can install standalone APKs if you like. The nature of the platform protects you from the likes of Apple.
Yes, but it also protects you from the likes of customers and profits. Last time I checked that was still the case with Android vs iOS marketplaces.
Do you think developers are idiots that develop for iOS BECAUSE of the restrictions? They develop for iOS DESPITE the restrictions, because a) that's where the money is, b) more high-end devices and latest versions of the respective OS at more end user hands with less fragmentation headaches. Plus, as a API, Cocoa Touch is pretty hard to beat, not for easy of use but for sheer _comprehensiveness_.
That said, going with Android could have worked well financially for an app such as this though, where the customers have a real need for it that is more important than their preference in smartphone.
>You would at least think that they saw why choosing Apple is fundamentally wrong for any person who considers himself free. If you're not free to do with your own property as you please, how much of a free being are you really?
The concept of freedom, as developed in Greece and Rome, is all about influencing policy and not being under the will of another man. So, a better question would be: if you are not free NOT to work as an employee, i.e not to spend 8+ hours a day under the commands of another, then how much of a free being are you really? Or, if you are not free to have an equal influence in public affairs with Joe Billionaire and Jack Lobbyist, how much of a free being are you really? Furthermore, if half of your life is regulated, from non-smoking laws, to anti-abortion, to whatever, how much of a free being are you?
The "installing whatever on my smartphone" is really really low in the freedom list...
> The "installing whatever on my smartphone" is really really low in the freedom list...
Given how important computers are in our society (and they're only getting more important) and given how many people use a smartphone as a primary computing device (and that's only increasing), I think "installing whatever on my smartphone" is higher on the freedom list than you think - and it is only moving higher.
I'm still waiting for the lawsuit that forces apple to provide an option to install unreviewed apps. Nobody would tolerate this kind of total platform control in OS X or windows. Why is it tolerated in iOS?
It's perfectly fine to have a a curated app store by default, it's not OK when it's the only option. Especially when your as big as Apple is.
While I do agree with some criticisms regarding Apple's management of their app ecosystem, I'm much more fearful of a legal regime that could step in and simply dictate the business operations of a private entity.
If you are critical of Apple's 'dictatorship', how can you be comfortable with the idea that the government is going to wield its power any better? You can choose not to do business with Apple. Try that with the government.
We aren't talking about public safety, fraudulent behavior, or monopolistic advantage here. You can even utilize Apple's hardware and ditch their curated ecosystem if you want (jail break your phone). Nobody is going to stop you.
Running to a lawyer and the courts when you don't like the product offerings of a private company is absurd.
> I'm much more fearful of a legal regime that could step in and simply dictate the business operations of a private entity.
They already do. In the US we call those dictatorial edicts regulations, and they specify how many business operations are to be done or impose restrictions on how things can be done.
Laws against putting sawdust in meat? dictating the business operations of a private entity. restrictions on how pure gasoline must be to be used in a car? dictating the business operations of a private entity. Laws restricting the reasons a business can fire someone or refuse to hire them? dictating the business operations of a private entity. I could keep going, but I think I've made my point here.
> If you are critical of Apple's 'dictatorship', how can you be comfortable with the idea that the government is going to wield its power any better?
Because in the us the government is not a dictatorship.
> You can choose not to do business with Apple. Try that with the government.
I believe that is called immigration.
> We aren't talking about public safety, fraudulent behavior, or monopolistic advantage here.
The government is not restricted to making laws abut just those things. Article 1, sections 8 through 10 of the Constitution define what the government can and can't make laws about.
> Running to a lawyer and the courts when you don't like the product offerings of a private company is absurd.
I think you are mischaracterizing what is happening here. I think it is more correct to say that what is happening is that people are running to a lawyer and the courts when a private company is trying to control how you use their product (and possibly making changes to how it works/what it does) after you have purchased it.
> I think you are mischaracterizing what is happening here.
I was responding to the notion that Apple's decision to only support a curated app store should be 'fixed' by the government because it is in some unexplained way 'illegal'.
You are introducing a lot of other issues that I wasn't trying to address.
If you don't like Apple's curated ecosystem: use Apple's Enterprise Program to distribute unreviewed apps or jail break your phone or switch to Android or switch to a Windows smartphone or start your own company and compete against all of them or don't use a smartphone or ...
These are all preferable to supporting the idea that there is something illegal going on that has to be remedied by a lawsuit.
"I'm much more fearful of a legal regime that could step in and simply dictate the business operations of a private entity."
Which is so unlike the legal regime that backs up that "private" entity when it uses government granted privilege to keep competitors at bay (such as with patents and insane copyright legislation).
I would be perfectly fine with having their own little private ecosystem where they pull the rug out from under developers -- if they would stop trying to undermine those trying to compete with it via lawsuits, for that would just mean that they would ultimately learn their lesson. But when the government stands behind their tyranny over developers, they never learn.
Did you just suggest that, to teach Apple a lesson for protecting granted patents[1] - which is legal - the government should control what they can and cannot do with something they created?
[1] If the patent system is good/evil/broken/whatever is a separate argument. And if the patent system is the problem you fix the patent system, not something else that isn't related to it.
ashish*: "Did you just suggest that, to teach Apple a lesson for protecting granted patents[1] - which is legal - the government should control what they can and cannot do with something they created?"
No, I said if the free market were in force (as opposed to the protection racket that is the patent system), then THAT would teach Apple a lesson.
I made no remark about whether there should be strings attached to government privilege, but certainly it's reasonable that if someone is profiting unjustly from government handouts (e.g. patents), then they shouldn't have carte blanche.
Nobody would tolerate this kind of total platform control in OS X or windows.
I disagree. I think, if the control were introduced slowly enough and with the right justifications ("security" and "convenience" spring to mind) many users would welcome iOS level restrictions on their general purpose computing hardware. Indeed, we're already seeing Apple move in this direction with its increasingly strict restrictions on App Store purchases in OSX.
I hate to be as alarmist as Stallman and co., but I do think the ship has sailed on this one. The only way to guarantee that your device is open is to run an open operating system on it. If this were an Android app instead of an iPad, then the developers could have asked users to install a different app. store (like Amazon's app store) or even offered the .apk for the users to install themselves. It would have been less convenient than installing from Google Play, but it wouldn't have been nearly as difficult as with iOS.
Not necessarily. There would have been one browser: Internet Explorer, and if Hacker News didn't work with it (or if Microsoft had decided to block HN) then I'd be out of luck. And guess what? That's exactly the road Microsoft was going down when the Justice Department intervened and said that their bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows was anti-competitive. Yes, Microsoft got away with a "slap on the wrist", but I do think that decision created space for alternative browsers (like Firefox and Opera, and later Chrome) on the Windows platform.
So yes, I agree with you. If Microsoft had been allowed to proceed down that path, it's conceivable that Hacker News wouldn't be around, or would exist in a different form. Now Apple is going down the path that was trod earlier by Microsoft. Yet the Justice Department today is silent.
Because it's an unethical business practice and detrimental to society as a whole.
It's like if I buy all the real-estate in New York City, then force all businesses to pay me 30% of there revenues if they want operate there, and forbid any business that competes with one of mine.
Actually, it's more like you buy all the cheap mineral rights to land in North Dakota, and then develop fracking to extract oil and natural gas. Just because everyone else failed in North Dakota doesn't mean that you're now required to grant all the other energy companies access.
No one holds a gun to your head to buy an iPhone/iPod/iPad. There are alternatives to these devices, some with more freedom, some with less.
I wish just as much as the next computer geek to be able to side-load any app into my iOS devices, but millions of zombie machines and a slew of critical private information harvesters are way more detrimental (and even more in your phone which may become your credit card and whatnot). I honestly sleep much better now that I know my relatives won't download, install and execute some random app, since they conveniently have all they could wish for right in the App Store, reviewed and signed. It's not an invincible fortress, but it's way safer and more secure for them than a full-open (or even half-open) situation.
That 30% is standard business practice for middlemen. Any time you see someone complaining about the 30% cut, you can be sure that they don't have business experience. In some businesses the middleman gets a bit lower, in others a bit higher, but 30% is boringly normal.
Do you think the farmers make more than 70% of the retail price you pay for food in a supermarket? At an eatery? Do you think that book authors (before or after the internet) get more than 70% of the retail price of each book?
In selling things, the creation of the thing is important, yes. But so is getting it to customers and changing over the money (distribution and retail channel).
This already basically exists with the adhoc system. For $99/year, I can load up to 100 devices with anything I sign with my certificate, no app store required.
$99/year + a relatively recent Mac + $4.99 for XCode + extensive technical training on how to compile and sign a project + the source code of the app you're trying to install.
You don't need the source code. Search for InstaSign/iReSign.
And you don't need a relatively new Mac, just a Core 2 Duo Intel or newer (I have a 3 year old MBP and can sign/develop for iOS 6 beta seed 1).
And it requires absolutely zero technical knowledge: You just drag and drop an .ipa file, and sync with iTunes.
Xcode is free.
So, only your first argument ($99/year, for 100 devices) is actually correct.
---
I hate being forced to defend Apple in a case that I don't agree with what they did, but your very poor criticism made me to correct you. I'm sure you understand that it's nothing personal, and doesn't mean I agree with what Apple did.
No it's not the same. It's not even close to that. I am fine with the 99$/year, I am fine with the no appstore, I can find my methods, but limiting me to 100 devices it's whole another story.
I'm told that if you ask nicely, you can get the limit bumped up to 200 or 300 devices - failing that, you could also get an enterprise license (which has no device restrictions).
a legal ruling that jailbreaking cannot void a hardware warranty should be sufficient. anything more than that seems like it would set a bad precedent.
it's obvious that he meant you are. Please, not everyone is a native English speaker and even if he was a typo can happen to anyone. There is no need to correct everybody. I think this is an enough mature community to understand that.
One side of this story I can't figure out is how wildly bad Apple's PR has been. They refused to comment for this story. Seriously? I can understand how this happened (it's just an app, there's a plausible lawsuit, pull it). But once that little girls face went up... ?
Apple is in no danger here. They can just say "On further review, the plaintiff's case is not as strong as we thought; we'll wait for the courts to decide and eagerly await their decision.". But there's nothing from them at all. They didn't put the app back up, they didn't issue a statement. They wouldn't even talk to Ars about this story. What's going on in there? This is a PR disaster.
He would have waited for the drama to mostly blow over, and then, if they made a decision to put a stake in the ground over the story, would have written a plain-English 3 paragraph letter published on their website about what Apple's strategy moving forward regarding the issue would be.
Most of the time, though, Apple just doesn't get involved in stuff like this. What's in it for them? It's not actually a PR disaster for Apple; if anything, from a coldly calculated perspective, this is good PR for Apple.
>What's in it for them? It's not actually a PR disaster for Apple; if anything, from a coldly calculated perspective, this is good PR for Apple.
That's pretty much it. There's basically nothing they could say or do that works out for them in either the long run or short run.
If they leave it up after the C&D/DMCA/whatever complaint, they could be sued. If they make a statement that's remotely in support of PRC's case, the story suddenly isn't PRC vs. Speak for Yourself, it's Apple vs. a little girl. If they make a statement in support of Speak for Yourself, it's suddenly PRC vs. Apple. None of those outcomes are positive PR. While the third is a feel-good move, it doesn't actually do anything positive with the case.
It's in Apple's best interest to just pull the app and stay silent until the courts decide the case.
> If they leave it up after the C&D/DMCA/whatever complaint, they could be sued.
Sure, that's a risk (though probably a small one: they know the revenue this app is producing, so they know what the maximum likely damages will be -- this certainly doesn't look like a big market to me). Bad PR is a risk too (I mean really: did you see that girl's face? You seriously aren't sympathetic? You think no one else is?). Why'd they take it down if they were going to "stay silent"?
>Bad PR is a risk too (I mean really: did you see that girl's face? You seriously aren't sympathetic? You think no one else is?). Why'd they take it down if they were going to "stay silent"?
I really am sympathetic to her, and that's the problem for Apple. PRC's actions, while they may be legal and proper, just don't feel right after reading that story.
It's an intensely emotional story. It's hard not to feel that Apple and PRC are the "bad guys" here. Apple's actions could be, at from a purely unemotional and logical view, be defended as a proper response to the situation. PRC's suit could have merit. But because of the emotional baggage, the moment Apple makes a statement defending or explaining their actions, the story absolutely changes from "PRC sues Speak for Yourself, and little girl is caught in the crossfire" to "Apple vs. little girl".
It's also fairly typical for them to take their time in carefully crafting a response in situations like these. We may see something from them yet on this, I think it's too early to say.
I understand the frustration with what apple has done here (which actually one of the prime reasons I haven't bought an iPhone or iPad; I don't buy computer products that don't give me root access or otherwise attempt to restrict how I use the product), but it's not like apple isn't being consistent with applying their policy.
They have taken down apps in the past that have been accused of violating patents/copyrights /trademarks without a court order. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is now actually liable for lost products or damaged reputation for not policing possibly infringing apps once notified of a lawsuit since they've set a precedent for doing so.
I got sued once in a similar way, for an app a competitor claimed copied their UI and violated trade dress, copyright etc. Apple didn't pull our app though, and it seems so fraught that Apple is making legal judgments both ways.
Our competitor sent a complaint to Apple, so we re-assured Apple, sued the complaining company, they counter-sued, and eventually settled.
The suit cost about 20k and we made minor changes to the app UI as a result. Waste of time and money for everyone.
Throwaway account and no other details because I'm under NDA.
I've posted here about my similar case before. I spent easily as much on lawyers fighting a frivolous copyright claim against my app, and after initially prevailing, the other guy simply moved jurisdictions and started over. This was two years ago, so things might have changed, but Apple was patient and did not pull my app while the legal process was in motion.
That's the one thing that bugs me most about Apple. Not the kill switch, not the pricing, but the complete and total lack of objective transparency on the app store. Would it absoulutely kill them to come out with some hard and fast rules? It's not that difficult.
This raises a subsidiary question for me: does anyone know of an Android phone that plays nicely with OS X syncing? When I looked into this a year or two ago, I didn't see anything that appeared to be good.
One of the insanely useful things about the iPhone (at least to me) is that it syncs automatically with Address Book, iCal, Mail, iTunes, and iPhoto. To my knowledge, Android phones haven't done the same. Yet the increasing bogosity of Apple's policies make me wonder about the alternatives.
If you sync your MacOS machine to the equivalent Google services (Calendar, Mail, Contacts, Music, Photos), you can then sync your Android to the same things. This is what I do, and have been super happy with the arrangement.
Though, you are trading one behemoth for another. You could, of course, substitute some of the pieces of this with your own, or other services without a hitch.
As a user it doesn't leave me in the dark. I look at the store 'shelf' and select what I want. I'm about as interested in the behind the scenes of the App Store as I would be about how my local grocery store shelves are stocked. I'm sure it's fascinating I just don't care very much. If they don't have exactly the type of soup I am looking for I'll probably just get a slightly different type of soup. At worst maybe I would have to consider shopping at a different store instead. If they explained to me that they decided not to carry this brand of soup because sometimes the can explodes and shoots metal shards in your face I would I actually appreciate their choice to stop selling it. I don't need soup cans exploding in my face and I don't really have time to keep up with all the details of how soup cans are made, what the different types are, which types of cans are the most reliable/safe, etc. I'm fine with the grocery store handling that for me.
I have never dealt with Apple and the app store, but I have a question for those who do. Many of the complaints regard transparency and frequency of communications. Is it a lack of communication on Apple's part? Do your attempts to initiate communication with them and get status updates or discuss issues fail? Or do you expect Apple to initiate all communications for you and they never do?
I have submitted around 30 apps to the App store, and I have been rejected 5-8 times. Each time, I got a clear reason why I was rejected, and sometimes suggestions on what to fix. My biggest problem has been that you have to re-submit the app and get back in line to be reviewed, so if you get rejected multiple times, the review process could turn from weeks to months. Your mileage may certainly vary .For the most part, my apps are not intentionally pushing the limits of any known rules, and my rejections have mostly been as a result of an oversight.
It sounds like there's room for someone with appstore submission experience to offer a service with a faster turnaround and official submission guarantees (i.e., we'll review your app in a day, give you feedback, and if we say it's good and it gets rejected, we'll refund your money).
Anyone who can't navigate the submission process themselves, probably has a very low threshold for pain, and will likely not last very long doing business in the Appstore.
From my experience any attempt to contact phone support is totally useless and will not get you anythings. Email support will get instead only not nice responses. Usually if you contact Apple it's because you have problems, whatever the reson, missed payments, app rejections etc... you will get only closed doors from them. I might be drastic but i came to the conclusion that there is NOTHING in the Apple's "dictatorship" that is benign.
I believe that their behaviour is because they are Apple. They don't need you. You need them. So or you stick with what they give you or you can leave. Personally I left. But sadly to make them care one person is not enough. Too many people are still "blind", or stuck with them and cannot leave.
Followup questions then. Do they have a phone line you can use? When you contacted them were you friendly, terse, unfriendly? Just from my own dealings with other forms of customer service I've found that most people who find the support unpleasant, untimely, etc. are terse in their communication. This isn't the same as unfriendly, it's just blunt and overly concise. Support folks get so much communication they tend to take it much like being unfriendly and put them at the bottom of the queue. Sometimes, of course, the support staff are just unpleasant or slow or bogged down in bureaucracy.
We've been absolutely lucky and had nothing but a great response with the iPhone app team. We had an app initially denied, and within 2 days of responsive communication we solved the problem they were finding and got it pushed live. However in regards to the desktop app store, we're not touching it and hoping that we can continue to deploy outside of the app store as we can't ask our pro users to work within the constraints of the sandbox.
I'm just curious, are there any instances of Apple Killing already purchased apps? I know I still have a 4 year old tethering app. I don't know if it even works on current versions, but I just haven't deleted it. I still have VLC for iOS. So it seems like the family's paranoia that apple will kill the already purchased app overblown.
I had an app called HandyLight that let you use 3G tethering without paying AT&T's extra monthly fee.
When I upgraded to the iPhone 4S from the iPhone 4, the .ipa wouldn't install. Even when I tried to add it through iTunes, it would immediately delete itself.
Yes, there was an app that had a back-door built into it so the app could be secretly used to jail-break the device it was running on. This was pulled from the market.
It seems a bit weird that they are choosing to sell nothing and take on a giant PR campaign rather than simply port this to Android or any other tablet OS and get on with life. This is a very specialized app where anybody with an affected child will gladly buy a custom piece of hardware if necessary to get the job done.
(Of course, they may still get a "real" legal injunction from selling it of some kind, but then at least they can stop complaining about their competitor back-dooring the justice system).
From my own experience, once you have purchased/downloaded an app you can install/re-install it on devices without any restriction, but you would be wise to keep a copy of the .ipa somewhere. I downloaded the VLC app on my iPhone before it was pulled and have since been able to install it onto an iPad I bought last month no problem. Obviously it won't be updated so the problem of future compatibility is still an issue.
Can we end these articles please? They're link bait.
Apple users are wildly happy according to surveys. The platform is still the strongest dev environment is Apple's history. The tradeoff is reduced control over your hardware and software. Not perfect, but concessions are made.
The use of metaphors is always what rings false though. The 'crystal prison' or leaving users in the 'dark'. Users are given a touch device that talks to everyone on the planet, can download things for 100 pennies, and becomes more useful with time. User don't see this as a dark prison in any way.
I keep seeing this argument pop-up. That we should just ignore Apple because it makes their users happy. Or
"whining geeks have no affect on Apple and it's users, we should just stop paying attention to them" Obviously, that's wishful thinking. Computer experts will always pay attention to what most people are using and the markets that drive it, and other people who care what smart people think will continue to seek their opinion, because they are right.
Not really interested in why this has become a standard tactic by some... but it's not gaining any ground, so you can just stop it.
Where did I say ignore? I just asked to stop with the skewed metaphor.
I respect people's wariness, but if they feel this way there are dozens of alternative options. Much better to promote them than to rag on what other people enjoy.
It's not just about having alternative options, or "hating that people enjoy Apple" about doing things an effective and efficient way. Being efficient is something we all care about because we're all on the same planet. Being locked into a certain vendor's way of doing things is a Bad Thing™, and definitely not efficient. We already learned this with Microsoft... I guess everyone has to learn the hard way that not caring about your tools, paying someone else to care, and then expecting them to "just work" is not a effective way to do anything.
The nature of the platform protects you from the likes of Apple.
That there are options doesn't make Apple any more right here. I'm not saying that. But there are other platforms than Apple's closed circus. And people should consider them.
With time I hope people will see that value in an open platform. That these people, those who have their daughter threatened to be re-muted by Apple, that they still insist on using Apple's hardware is a mystery to me.
You would at least think that they saw why choosing Apple is fundamentally wrong for any person who considers himself free. If you're not free to do with your own property as you please, how much of a free being are you really?