@Blaise: yes, but neither can I run a Windows application (or many other purpose built apps) on Android.
Downloadable applications are not new – Nokia, for instance, has had them available for years. Yet it took Apple and the integrated App Shop to really have it take off. Now we see other vendors going down the same path. Problem is, when you “sell” (for free or for money) an application, there’s a level of support you’ll be required by various laws to provide warranty over the product. Hence you’ll see a level of oversight on all other App shops. Then we get to support – who is responsible for supporting your product when there is not a single “front” to the product?
I’m not saying that it’s bad, I’m just saying that Apple wants to reduce f**k ups by their user base through stupid decisions that will affect their image. The big whingers are the geeks who want complete control – but they’re not the average. The average wants something that will work, that they don’t need to tinker with and that they can call and get support when it breaks.
What I don’t hear in a similar vein is the removal of contractual obligations with telcos – why should you be locked down to a single carrier for 12, 24, 36 months? (understanding that the state of carriers in the US is fairly woeful)
@Joel actually, in Canada, there has been a push back against contracts. Three new carriers launched in the past 6 months, all over no contract alternatives to the incumbents (among other differences, like actually unlimited unlimited plans).
I still don’t understand the apologetics for Apple’s tight controls on third-party applications for the iPod/iPad/iPhone in light of the complete absence of similar policies on macbooks. Why doesn’t Apple need to reduce screwups in the same way to protect their image on their laptop/desktop operating system? Seems like an empty argument to me.
“I want to address the common objection that most people don’t care about limits on programming, because they don’t know how to program. To me, this is like saying that you don’t care about restaurant closings because nobody in your house knows how to cook. If you can’t cook for yourself, you should care more about restaurant quality. If all of the good restaurants close, good cooks will just make their own good meals — but you’ll be out of luck.
I think the average user finds it lame that they can’t watch YouTube videos on their iPad, or that Skype is ridiculously limited (unlike, say, on my Nokia N900, running a mostly free software stack, where there’s no difference between Skype, SIP or standard voice calls).
Also, I’ve never heard about the issues with warranties. What laws require you to provide support if you’ve got a distribution mechanism for software applications? All the GNU/linux distributions I use have software repositories, and there’s no similar issue that I’ve heard of there, even though they offer tens of thousands of applications to users.
Not sure where I discounted Apple, or said that limited choices shouldn’t be allowed, or that the average end-user cares about SIP. The average user I know would care whether or not you could make Skype calls over 3G (or from their perspective, anytime), versus only over wifi. A business might care more about SIP.
Apple is certainly a force to be reckoned with. I was just saying, first, that the iOS is considerably more “closed” than OS X, and then, that “reducing screwups” is a silly and inconsistent rationale for that. I never said they shouldn’t be allowed to be silly or inconsistent, or that they should be discounted.
Isn’t the iPhone/iPad OS a little more locked down than OS X on a Macbook? Is Flash allowed on Macbooks?
@Blaise: yes, but neither can I run a Windows application (or many other purpose built apps) on Android.
Downloadable applications are not new – Nokia, for instance, has had them available for years. Yet it took Apple and the integrated App Shop to really have it take off. Now we see other vendors going down the same path. Problem is, when you “sell” (for free or for money) an application, there’s a level of support you’ll be required by various laws to provide warranty over the product. Hence you’ll see a level of oversight on all other App shops. Then we get to support – who is responsible for supporting your product when there is not a single “front” to the product?
I’m not saying that it’s bad, I’m just saying that Apple wants to reduce f**k ups by their user base through stupid decisions that will affect their image. The big whingers are the geeks who want complete control – but they’re not the average. The average wants something that will work, that they don’t need to tinker with and that they can call and get support when it breaks.
What I don’t hear in a similar vein is the removal of contractual obligations with telcos – why should you be locked down to a single carrier for 12, 24, 36 months?
(understanding that the state of carriers in the US is fairly woeful)
@Joel actually, in Canada, there has been a push back against contracts. Three new carriers launched in the past 6 months, all over no contract alternatives to the incumbents (among other differences, like actually unlimited unlimited plans).
I still don’t understand the apologetics for Apple’s tight controls on third-party applications for the iPod/iPad/iPhone in light of the complete absence of similar policies on macbooks. Why doesn’t Apple need to reduce screwups in the same way to protect their image on their laptop/desktop operating system? Seems like an empty argument to me.
As for the average user arguments, I think Ed Felten said it best:
I think the average user finds it lame that they can’t watch YouTube videos on their iPad, or that Skype is ridiculously limited (unlike, say, on my Nokia N900, running a mostly free software stack, where there’s no difference between Skype, SIP or standard voice calls).
Also, I’ve never heard about the issues with warranties. What laws require you to provide support if you’ve got a distribution mechanism for software applications? All the GNU/linux distributions I use have software repositories, and there’s no similar issue that I’ve heard of there, even though they offer tens of thousands of applications to users.
Last time I checked, free market ensured choice, even choices leading toward limited choices
To discount apple is dangerous. My parents can give two shits about sip.
Not sure where I discounted Apple, or said that limited choices shouldn’t be allowed, or that the average end-user cares about SIP. The average user I know would care whether or not you could make Skype calls over 3G (or from their perspective, anytime), versus only over wifi. A business might care more about SIP.
Apple is certainly a force to be reckoned with. I was just saying, first, that the iOS is considerably more “closed” than OS X, and then, that “reducing screwups” is a silly and inconsistent rationale for that. I never said they shouldn’t be allowed to be silly or inconsistent, or that they should be discounted.