The cathedral plus the bazaar: Open source and Apple (design) envy

At 28 Jun 2009 18:14:03 -0700 There's an app for that...on the $99 iPhone @
AT&T wrote:

> I agree with all the above points and consider them insightful in
> understanding why the iPhone is such a difficult target for other
> firms to take on. It actullay justifies my opinion of those who
> complain the iPhone is not like their idea of a smart phone as being
> complete idiots who miss the point.

Arguably, like most closed-minded people, you miss the point because you
only see one side- yours. the iPhonemeets your limited needs, so it's the
pinnacle of human achievement. I agree the iPhone is a nifty device and a
great mobile companion for many people. But it isnt a "mobile computer"
due to its intentional limitations.

The Apple concept of a mobile device, IMO, is actually a dangerous one. You
see the rainbows and unicorns side of "easy to use," and an app store full
of 60,000 apps, and like the sirens' song, that's pretty hard to resist.
I, however, see the dark side of a closed infrastructure driving me to the
iTunes and App stores, and "safe" pablum apps using only the official APIs,
so no real improvements can be made to the core functions of the device-
file viewers using the internal file viewer APIs, email using the email APIs,
etc. Apps can dress up the native functions in eye-catching new ways, but
since, for example, the iPod APIs only support playback of format X and Y,
your app simply ain't gonna playback format Z, no way, no how.

I see not a smartphone, but an iPod on steroids, beholden to content
providers and mobile operators above its users- an Atari 2600 for the 21st
century- running a closed architecture, using factory-approved apps
delivered by factory-approved means and using only licensed accessories.


> The iPhone is not being bought as
> a smart phone, the smart phone ala windows mobile etc. is a failed
> concept in the market place.


Probably true. The real problem with the smartphone concept as defined by
Palm OS and Windows CE was the software was always ahead of what the
hardware could reliably deliver- they always "bit off more than they could
chew." Blackberry got it mostly right, realizing these crappy anemic
devices can barely handle anything more than text, and proceeded to build
amazing email-centric devices that made no apologies for crummy WAP browsers,

and lack of media supprt (or even .jpg picture support on some models!)

Apple looked at the marketplace and fixed everything that could be a
potential problem... ...for APPLE! They crippled developer access to
hardware to "increase stability,"- the lockout of unapproved apps
circumventing the app store commissions was just a lucky side benefit. The
ban on "duplicate functionality" that might otherwise allow alternate media
players that could use competing music stores simply "prevents user
confusion."

John Dvorak joked in a recent column, that if Microsoft had produced the
iPhone instead of Apple, with the same restrictions, someone would've
started a class-action lawsuit already.

I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the next
line of Macs and MacBooks had the same restrictions as the iPhone - a
centralized app distribution system preventing apps to be sourced anywhere
else, no user-accessible file system, with files only available to the app
that created them, media files not transferable to other computers (because
only pirates do THAT!), and the next Mac OS preventing more than one third-
party app from running at a time, would the Mac users all agree this was
beneficial to the user experience as the iPhone users seem to believe?

I agree that Microsoft's concept of porting Windows '98 to to the 3.5"
screen wasn't anywhere near a resounding success, but the concept wasn't a
bad one. Sure the UI is a litle clumsy, but anyone who's used a Winows PC
gets the gist of navigating right away. They're not as hard to use as you
pretend. Where they screwd up, IMO, is where they didn't complete the
emulation: "X" icons that minimize apps rather than close them, for
example. It was almost like a bait and switch- first we show you "it's
just like Windows" then after you dive in we change all the rules!

Apple's start-from-scratch mobile UI was a much better idea. Where Apple
has failed completely, however, is by showing an utter lack of faith in
developers to improve the product. (Or it just might be hubris that the
product is nearly perfect as is.)

Windows Mobile developers took an awkward UI running on underpowered
hardware and made it do amazing things its designers couldn't have possibly
envisioned. Hardware manufacturers used the standard I/O ports (CF and
SDIO) to create hardware to convert simple PDAs into dedicated controllers,
diagnostic tools, measuring instruments, etc. This was an exciting time in
portable computing akin to the day when custom hardware boards, both
commercal and amateur, were being developed for Trash-80s and Apple IIs.

Apple on the other hand, treats the iPhone developers like children-
Apple's laid out their toys neatly in the sandbox. If they're naughty,
they can't go to the app store. If they want more toys, they're told Santa
might bring them next firmware release day. The jailbreaker underground
is doing their best, but rather than nudge-nudge-wink-winking them, Apple
is fighting and threatening them, and forcing mainstream development to
stay away- Sling and Skype can't play both sides and build the AT&T-
approved WiFi-only apps for app store use and also sell 3G capable versions
for the jailbreak crowd. Upstanding iPhone partners don't soil themselves
by associating with the jailbreakers, or Apple won't let them play in the
app store either.


Sure, Apple raised the bar for UI, no doubt, but at what price?

Other platforms, some that may not have even launched yet, that do not owe
any allegiances to the RIAA or MPAA, will catch up with the Apple UI but
also offer a more open and robust user experience one of these days.
Hopefully, for Apple, they'll have attained critical mass by then. Apple
still hasn't had to deal with problems other platforms have struggled with
already; major architecture/chipset changes, multiple form factors,
weighing backwards compatibility vs. improving the OS or hardware, heck,
they haven't even introduced more than one screen resolution yet! That'll
be an exciting time in the App Store approval department, when virtually
every one of 60,000 apps gets updated or additional versions for multiple
resolutions! Then the slogan might be "There's Two Apps for That!" ;)

On 2009-06-29, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
> Apps can dress up the native functions in eye-catching new ways, but
> since, for example, the iPod APIs only support playback of format X
> and Y, your app simply ain't gonna playback format Z, no way, no
> how.

Not inside the iPod app, no, but inside your own app you presumably
can since you *can* get streaming radio apps etc.

> John Dvorak joked in a recent column, that if Microsoft had produced the
> iPhone instead of Apple, with the same restrictions, someone would've
> started a class-action lawsuit already.

Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly
(albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference.

> I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the next
> line of Macs and MacBooks had the same restrictions as the iPhone - a
> centralized app distribution system preventing apps to be sourced anywhere
> else, no user-accessible file system, with files only available to the app
> that created them, media files not transferable to other computers (because
> only pirates do THAT!), and the next Mac OS preventing more than one third-
> party app from running at a time, would the Mac users all agree this was
> beneficial to the user experience as the iPhone users seem to believe?

Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that
whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD?

> Apple's start-from-scratch mobile UI was a much better idea. Where Apple
> has failed completely, however, is by showing an utter lack of faith in
> developers to improve the product. (Or it just might be hubris that the
> product is nearly perfect as is.)

No, I think it's because they're targetting a different market.
Which they have every right to do, and by the looks of it, was
a very good decision!

> Apple on the other hand, treats the iPhone developers like children-
> Apple's laid out their toys neatly in the sandbox. If they're naughty,
> they can't go to the app store. If they want more toys, they're told Santa
> might bring them next firmware release day. The jailbreaker underground
> is doing their best, but rather than nudge-nudge-wink-winking them, Apple
> is fighting and threatening them,

Are they? I got the impression it was much more along the "nudge nudge
wink wink" lines, with Apple doing the minimum necessary to keep the
carriers happy. They rattle the sabre as required every now and again,
but the OS upgrades have repeatedly *failed* to screw over the
jailbreak people when they easily could have.

> Upstanding iPhone partners don't soil themselves by associating with
> the jailbreakers, or Apple won't let them play in the app store either.

Do you have a reference for that?

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message news:slrnh4h0l
o.v6q.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net...
> On 2009-06-29, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote:
>> Apps can dress up the native functions in eye-catching new ways, but
>> since, for example, the iPod APIs only support playback of format X
>> and Y, your app simply ain't gonna playback format Z, no way, no
>> how.
>
> Not inside the iPod app, no, but inside your own app you presumably
> can since you *can* get streaming radio apps etc.


Of the streaming apps I've seen or tried, they all seem to play streams in
formats (MP3, AAC) the iPhone handles natively already, at least judging by
what comes over my PC from the same sources (NPR, etc.)

>> John Dvorak joked in a recent column, that if Microsoft had produced the
>> iPhone instead of Apple, with the same restrictions, someone would've
>> started a class-action lawsuit already.
>
> Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly
> (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference.

Really? You'd rather be mugged by a "nice guy" rather than a mean one?

Apple doesn't get a "pass" because they're Apple.


>> I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the
>> next
>> line of Macs and MacBooks had the same restrictions as the iPhone - a
>> centralized app distribution system preventing apps to be sourced
>> anywhere
>> else, no user-accessible file system, with files only available to the
>> app
>> that created them, media files not transferable to other computers
>> (because
>> only pirates do THAT!), and the next Mac OS preventing more than one
>> third-
>> party app from running at a time, would the Mac users all agree this was
>> beneficial to the user experience as the iPhone users seem to believe?
>
> Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that
> whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD?

It was neither. Read it slowly: it was a hypothetical- hence the use of the
word "if". "IF the next Macs were as locked down as the iPhone, WOULD users
agree..." I'm not suggesting this a slippery slope Apple will ride up to
Macs- I'm just saying a lot of people here are defending practices employed
on the iPhone that they'd be horrified to see on a computer.


>> Apple's start-from-scratch mobile UI was a much better idea. Where Apple
>> has failed completely, however, is by showing an utter lack of faith in
>> developers to improve the product. (Or it just might be hubris that the
>> product is nearly perfect as is.)
>
> No, I think it's because they're targetting a different market.
> Which they have every right to do, and by the looks of it, was
> a very good decision!

We'll never know that. It might have been a better decision to have had a
real GPS app a year ago- maybe the iPhone would be the largest selling PND
right now!


>> Apple on the other hand, treats the iPhone developers like children-
>> Apple's laid out their toys neatly in the sandbox. If they're naughty,
>> they can't go to the app store. If they want more toys, they're told
>> Santa
>> might bring them next firmware release day. The jailbreaker underground
>> is doing their best, but rather than nudge-nudge-wink-winking them, Apple
>> is fighting and threatening them,
>
> Are they? I got the impression it was much more along the "nudge nudge
> wink wink" lines, with Apple doing the minimum necessary to keep the
> carriers happy. They rattle the sabre as required every now and again,
> but the OS upgrades have repeatedly *failed* to screw over the
> jailbreak people when they easily could have.

I'm not sure it'd be that easy to "screw them over" when they could simply
flash back to "legit" before upgrading. And Apple is fighting to make
jailbreaking illegal in the next DMCA
<http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf> That's not
sabre-rattling.


>> Upstanding iPhone partners don't soil themselves by associating with
>> the jailbreakers, or Apple won't let them play in the app store either.
>
> Do you have a reference for that?

Not at all- just observation. Sling poo-pooed the idea of a jailbroken
version when asked, as did Tom Tom when making noise in the press that they
had an iPhone version "ready to roll" a year ago. There seems, from casual
observation, to be a (perfect logical) incentive to keep a business partner
like Apple happy, and not undermine their business model. This is why a
single point of distribution is dangerous. The shake-the-baby app is FUNNY
(and I'm a father of three!); why should Apple, or anyone else, stop YOU
from buying porn if you want to? Why should AT&T have ANY say in the app
store? (AT&T is perfectly within their right to tell you not to use it on
their network, of course, and even build a technological barrier to enforce
that, but to ask for an app to modified or removed?) If logic like that
applied to computers, we'd never have seen a DVD backup app- Sony would've
asked Apple and Microsoft to "pull it from their app stores."

On 2009-06-29, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>> Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly
>> (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference.
>
> Really? You'd rather be mugged by a "nice guy" rather than a mean one?

No, but we haven't been "mugged", you're just raising the spectre that
we *might* be in the future. If it was Microsoft doing it, we would
know they can't be trusted. If it's any non-monopolist, then the
market will probably do a good job of keeping them in line.

>> Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that
>> whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD?
>
> It was neither. Read it slowly: it was a hypothetical- hence the use of the
> word "if". "IF the next Macs were as locked down as the iPhone, WOULD users
> agree..." I'm not suggesting this a slippery slope Apple will ride up to
> Macs- I'm just saying a lot of people here are defending practices employed
> on the iPhone that they'd be horrified to see on a computer.

That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer.
Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other?

> I'm not sure it'd be that easy to "screw them over" when they could simply
> flash back to "legit" before upgrading.

.... and the upgrade could easily remove the non-official stuff.
But it doesn't, because Apple didn't make it do that, even though they
easily could.

> Not at all- just observation. Sling poo-pooed the idea of a jailbroken
> version when asked, as did Tom Tom when making noise in the press that they
> had an iPhone version "ready to roll" a year ago. There seems, from casual
> observation, to be a (perfect logical) incentive to keep a business partner
> like Apple happy, and not undermine their business model.

Or they just don't want to undermine their own brand by making "dodgy"
products.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Todd Allcock posted:
> And Apple is fighting to make
> jailbreaking illegal in the next DMCA
> <http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf> That's not
> sabre-rattling.

That is, however, quite enough reason never to buy an iPhone. Not even
Microsoft is that evil.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

At 29 Jun 2009 11:25:44 -0500 Jon Ribbens wrote:

> >> Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly
> >> (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference.
> >
> > Really? You'd rather be mugged by a "nice guy" rather than a mean one?
>
> No, but we haven't been "mugged", you're just raising the spectre that
> we *might* be in the future.


No, the iPhone is locked-down now. You seem to have missed Dvorak's point-
if Microsoft had released the exact same iPhone, (though presumably
connecting to Zune software or WMP instead of iTunes, of course!) with all
of its software coming from the "Microsoft App store," requiring MS'
approval to be included, the entire industry would've been screaming bloody
murder.


> If it was Microsoft doing it, we would
> know they can't be trusted. If it's any non-monopolist, then the
> market will probably do a good job of keeping them in line.

Hence "mugged by a nice guy." Apple has never been a monopolist in
computers because they've never been in that power position, (though they
threw their weight around plenty battling clone makers in the Apple II days)
but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Look at the
iPod infrastructure, where Apple is in a near-monopoly position. The Pre
debuts with the ability to sync with iTunes, (which everyone now considers
the de facto "standard" in music management) and Apple immediately responds
with warnings that future iTunes updates could break third-party sync
functionality.

If Palm had built the Pre to sync with Zune, MS would be dancing in the
streets because it would mean someone might actually use it! ;)

> >> Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that
> >> whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD?
> >
> > It was neither. Read it slowly: it was a hypothetical- hence the use
of the
> > word "if". "IF the next Macs were as locked down as the iPhone, WOULD
users
> > agree..." I'm not suggesting this a slippery slope Apple will ride up
to
> > Macs- I'm just saying a lot of people here are defending practices
employed
> > on the iPhone that they'd be horrified to see on a computer.
>
> That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer.
> Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other?


An iPhone has the power of Wintel and Mac OS laptops built several years ago,
so excuses that some of the restrictions, like prohibiting background
execution, are due to "limited RAM/power, etc." make less sense given that
context.

And limiting app distribution to a single "source seems to be a universal
sin of closed platforms like game consoles. Why does that make any more
sense on a "mobile computing platform" than on a computer?


> > I'm not sure it'd be that easy to "screw them over" when they could
simply
> > flash back to "legit" before upgrading.
>
> ... and the upgrade could easily remove the non-official stuff.
> But it doesn't, because Apple didn't make it do that, even though they
> easily could.

What "non-official stuff" are you referring to? Upgrading an unlocked
phone legitimately, relocks the phones. I'm not aware of that happening
with any other flashable phone. Except for the iPhone, SIM unlocks, like
diamonds, are forever.


> > Not at all- just observation. Sling poo-pooed the idea of a jailbroken
> > version when asked, as did Tom Tom when making noise in the press that
they
> > had an iPhone version "ready to roll" a year ago. There seems, from
casual
> > observation, to be a (perfect logical) incentive to keep a business
partner
> > like Apple happy, and not undermine their business model.
>
> Or they just don't want to undermine their own brand by making "dodgy"
> products.


That's a perfectly valid theory as well. I'll concede that point to you.

Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote in
news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0906291042020.10452@hsinghsin g.panda.com:

> http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/r...ple-inc-31.pdf

Remember when lots of DOS software use to come packaged with serial port
dongles, hardware locks you had to have or the programs wouldn't even boot?

The dongle backlash pretty much destroyed that concept when the computing
public simply stopped buying dongle-protected software, no matter how
wonderful it was.

A similar public backlash needs to result before Apple will stop this shit.
As long as the really stupid fanbois will continue to shell out for locked
up products with built in box offices....nothing will change.

There appears to have been great success in the "dumbing down of America"
as the buyers of this crapware seem to be the victims of our wonderful
Sheeple Education System.....who will do as they are told without question.



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:45:53 -0700, Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote
in <alpine.OSX.2.00.0906291042020.10452@hsinghsing.pa nda.com>:

>On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Todd Allcock posted:
>> And Apple is fighting to make
>> jailbreaking illegal in the next DMCA
>> <http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf> That's not
>> sabre-rattling.
>
>That is, however, quite enough reason never to buy an iPhone. Not even
>Microsoft is that evil.

Oh really? From the standard Microsoft License Agreement:

Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation,
you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this
agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical
limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain
ways. For more information, see
www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not:

* work around any technical limitations in the software;

* reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and
only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite
this limitation;

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do fans keep making excuses for it?

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:09:54 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@aNOoSPAMl.com> wrote in <Ly72m.981$KM3.83@newsfe02.iad>:

>At 29 Jun 2009 11:25:44 -0500 Jon Ribbens wrote:

>> That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer.
>> Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other?
>
>An iPhone has the power of Wintel and Mac OS laptops built several years ago,
>so excuses that some of the restrictions, like prohibiting background
>execution, are due to "limited RAM/power, etc." make less sense given that
>context.

More to the point, standard cell phones with far less resources do such
multitasking easily.

One problem, of course, is that Mac OS X isn't a true RTOS. (iFans will
of course claim it is everything, but then they don't know what a true
RTOS actually is and why that matters.)

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do fans keep making excuses for it?

In article <2tei45dio7n3dfu9cej18gmfk2okm5g1ip@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> One problem, of course, is that Mac OS X isn't a true RTOS. (iFans will
> of course claim it is everything, but then they don't know what a true
> RTOS actually is and why that matters.)

Oooo, look--Navas went to a convention and heard a buzz-term.

And he's trolling around, hoping someone here will tell him what it
means...