Okay, I’ll admit it. Like many of you, I’m easily impressed by shinny, beautiful objects. Apple products typically fit that description to a tee.
So far, I’ve done my best to not buy Apple products, for the simple fact that Apple doesn’t trust me to do what I want with Apple products that I pay for and own. (Note, my wife owns an iPod and I borrow it from time to time). I still find it shocking that Apple can get away with such a closed stance.
Reading about the “iPhone kill switch”:
“…such a capability exists in case Apple inadvertently allows a malicious program to be distributed through the App Store.
Jobs is quoted saying: “Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull.”"
Just imagine if Microsoft or a hardware provider such as HP had put in an equivalent “feature” on PCs. Seriously, talk about a double standard when it comes to Apple!
I was going to argue that Apple should have learned the lesson from the early PC vs. Apple computer market. But the truth is, Apple is happy to remain a closed ecosystem and not face the downward pressure on prices that ultimately results from an open marketplace. Apple must have realized that closed and beautiful wins out over open. They’re just applying that learning to the iPod/iPhone applications market.
I’m pulling for RIM to offer mobile application developers with an open development platform without restrictions on the applications that developers can build and users can freely choose to run. It remains to be seen how/if RIM can offer the user experience of the iTunes store for RIM-based applications and content.
08.11.08 at 7:43 pm
I always have to wonder how people think that MS has an open approach to anything. Everything about MS software is closed, proprietary & does nothing more than lock you into their ecosystem.
WMA, WMV, IE, Zune marketplace, MS word formats, DirectX, Pals-For-Sure, Janus the list goes on & on. Apple uses plenty of standards & contributes to open source. What About MS? Oh, yeah you can run the same software on the same hardware (with a different company name on the box). Competition is a good thing. MS controlling everything is not. Infact, i would argue that MS has seriously hampered the growth & innovation in technology.
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20080701,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/1/20080724,01.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20040419,00.shtml
08.11.08 at 8:37 pm
“Just imagine if Microsoft or a hardware provider such as HP had put in an equivalent “feature” on PCs. Seriously, talk about a double standard when it comes to Apple!”
I am trying to imagine just such a thing. And truthfully, the thought of Microsoft being proactive in order to protect my user experience is beyond belief. What I do expect out of them is for them to give me a near-endless series of “help” messages, most of which contradict the ones I received immediately before. And then, when things are hosed up to the SNAFU level, and I humbly go to Redmond for help, I expect a scolding and another incomprehensible explanation as to why it was my fault in the first place.
Yes indeed, I see a double standard too.
08.11.08 at 9:56 pm
What is a “shinny” object? Something with extra-long leg bones?
08.12.08 at 1:43 am
“Just imagine if Microsoft or a hardware provider such as HP had put in an equivalent “feature” on PCs”
Then maybe Trojans and viruses wouldn’t be such a problem.
08.12.08 at 2:51 am
um … actually, MS does have such a ‘kill switch’ inside your PC. it’s called Windows Genuine Advantage. it can brick your entire PC. it’s intended to be used to prevent piracy of Vista of course, and in its current implementation just cripples the PC if an unauthorized OS copy is installed. but it could brick it, or be used in other ways too if MS wants. and remember – you get automatic system updates of Vista like it or not. so MS could expand the scope of WGA anytime it wants. it’s not designed to cure a problem by deactivating a selective app. it’s designed to punish you for doing something MS does not want you to do.
so your entire post is baloney.
08.12.08 at 7:02 am
Alfiejr, come on, there is a difference between a vendor preventing piracy and a vendor preventing what applications I run on a system that I own.
The whole notion that Apple must “verify” apps before they can be made available is laughable considering the “verification” that appears to be going on; and considering I don’t don’t need a vendor telling me what apps I can run (assuming that I have paid for the app and hardware).
08.12.08 at 7:04 am
Bret, really, you would be okay with this?
I wouldn’t, and suspect that privacy experts near and far would not support the introduction of this “feature”.
08.12.08 at 7:07 am
Chris, were you one of the lucky few who downloaded NetShare? If so, are you excited to know that the app which you paid for can and will be remotely killed in the near future (when AT&T pressures Apple to do so).
From a usability standpoint, I’m with you, Apple products generally rock. But this is a much larger issue than simply usability.
08.12.08 at 12:28 pm
Whether the iApp kill switch is a bad thing comes down to how it is actually used (or misused). From what I’ve read, the kill switch has not been used yet –although there has been controversy about programs disappearing from the app store, which is a different issue)
If Apple only ever uses the kill switch to disable genuinely harmful programs, it will be good. I think we will have to wait and see. If you aren’t willing to trust Apple, then by all means, buy something else.
For some people, only a completely open platform will be acceptable. But Apple’s success is based on the fact that lots of people are not capable or inclined to wrangle a device where all things are possible. They actually want a limited, controlled experience where they can’t get lost or do the “wrong” thing.
08.12.08 at 12:45 pm
Brett,
>But Apple’s success is based on the fact that lots of people are not capable or inclined to wrangle a device where all things are possible.
I completely agree. I’m just not in that group of users ;-)
08.12.08 at 1:11 pm
savio, you wrote: “Just imagine if Microsoft or a hardware provider such as HP had put in an equivalent “feature” on PCs”. well, the fact is they do, and you need to cop to that. only it’s far more potent, and potentially far more invasive. it could be used to police third party software, like the Apple one. it could be used to enforce DRM. there is no “double standard”. in fact, WGA is far worse.
08.13.08 at 1:03 am
by the way, just published today: “August 12, 2008 (Computerworld) Microsoft Corp. today issued “kill bit” updates for ActiveX controls from HP and a Washington state developer, the third time it’s disabled third-party add-ons in the last four months.” full story with more details:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9112478&source=rss_news50
but of course, MS says it will only used this power “when asked.”
08.15.08 at 11:34 pm
Don’t be so quick to hold Microsoft up as a paragon of virtue when it comes to being “open”.
You seem to neglect the fact that it is Apple not Microsoft that is Open Source-friendly, not Microsoft. It is Apple who has released the entire Darwin underpinnings of their OS as open source, not Microsoft. It is Apple who has taken KHTML, integrated it into Safari makes continuous improvements which it releases back into the community as webkit.
Mac OS X itself is based on the Mach Microkernal and BSD subsystem, is POSIX compliant, Apple’s Quicktime forms the basis of the open MPEG-4 standard versus the proprietary WindowsMedia. OS X builds in and contributes to Apache, Jabber, Bonjour (ie. ZeroConf which it invented and released as OS), Ruby, GCC, CUPS, MySQL, et etc.
Haven’t you been to a FOS event recently and seen the large percentage of attendees and presenters wielding Macbook Pros?
I think the other comments are spot on the money regarding WGA.
Apple doesn’t cripple their Operating System software or consumer apps with serial number protection or Activation or WGA – Apple trusts you to do the right thing and buy a Family pack for only a little more instead of copying the unprotected new OS to all your other Macs. And what do you know, the vast majority of Mac users honour Apple’s trust and buy the family Pack to do the right thing. You can even install Mac OS X on a generic PC as Apple doesn’t incorporate any anti-piracy measures – they just use Intel’s more modern EFI instead of the ancient BIOS that Windows still requires.
On the App Store issue, Symbian and Windows Mobile already have viruses and other malware, why do you not consider that it could be a good thing for Apple to at least attempt to nip that in the bud. The 1,800 apps in the App Store already don’t seem to have suffered much. In fact, the iPhone has proved to instantly be the biggest, most profitable mobile development platform ever in just its first month of operation.
As far as access to more features of the iPhone OS, just give Apple a bit more time to optimise and widen their SDK and App Store – it’s all still new and it takes time to do it right.
I think Apple does have some issues, but they’re doing far more things right than wrong.
-Mart