Prev: Q: Certificates
Next: Strange new iTunes playback problems.
From: BreadWithSpam on 22 Mar 2010 02:14
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes:

> > This is certainly an concern that goes into my decision to purchase an
> > iPad. There are things about it that I really like and see that I would
> > definitely use (that I can't get out of a netbook). But this walled
> > garden business is something that I don't like. And in the end it may
> > deter me from purchasing the thing.
>
> what do you want to do that you can't do because of a walled garden?

Buy and install software that Apple hasn't approved and
isn't distributing through their App store. Without jailbreaking
the device.

There are legitimate things to limit which Apple should make
clear that if folks violate them, they'll get less support -
some of the hacks that folks jailbreak to use may fall into
that category.

But any regular app - something which can't crash the whole
machine but only the normal application space - there should
be a legit way to get such an app without the App store.

There may be some room for restrictions - for example, a
streaming video app or voice-chat app might legitimately
be restriced to not work under 3G (of course, that's an
AT&T question) but even that could be dealt with by simply
putting some kind of bandwidth limits in place instead
of by locking down the Apps.

Apple's restrictions on what they sell via the Apple
store are up to them, certainly. But they've gone a
bit far by making it so we can't get apps any other
way, they are making the device a bit less useful than
it othewise could be.

[c.s.m.advocacy removed - I've no interest in the trolls
being all over this.]

That all said, I think Apple's made a great level of
tradeoff. For me, it could be better, but there's a
huge market out there for folks who really want a
computing appliance and the lockdown they've engaged
in certainly helps towards that end. Limiting what we
can do or install also limits the damage that an end
user can do, and makes it easier for someone for whom
the default options are adequate to never have to worry
about screwing the thing up. I think this thing's going
to sell like hotcakes.

And I think Apple's going to come up with a small-market
or enterprise app distribution system. If a business wants
to buy a thousand of these things and have a custom app which
is only necessary for that business's employees, it seems
like a no-brainer that Apple's going to make it easy for that
business to write a custom app and distribute it only to iPads
that they buy for their employees -- without going through the
Apple store to do it. It's too big a potential market to
ignore.


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
From: nospam on 22 Mar 2010 02:21
In article <yob4ok8khlx.fsf(a)panix1.panix.com>,
<BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net> wrote:

> > what do you want to do that you can't do because of a walled garden?
>
> Buy and install software that Apple hasn't approved and
> isn't distributing through their App store. Without jailbreaking
> the device.

such as which software? what *can't* you do right now? specifically.

> But any regular app - something which can't crash the whole
> machine but only the normal application space - there should
> be a legit way to get such an app without the App store.

you can always write it yourself or hire someone to do it. you just
can't sell it on the apps store.

> There may be some room for restrictions - for example, a
> streaming video app or voice-chat app might legitimately
> be restriced to not work under 3G (of course, that's an
> AT&T question) but even that could be dealt with by simply
> putting some kind of bandwidth limits in place instead
> of by locking down the Apps.

there are such restrictions, and recently some of them have been lifted.

> That all said, I think Apple's made a great level of
> tradeoff. For me, it could be better, but there's a
> huge market out there for folks who really want a
> computing appliance and the lockdown they've engaged
> in certainly helps towards that end. Limiting what we
> can do or install also limits the damage that an end
> user can do, and makes it easier for someone for whom
> the default options are adequate to never have to worry
> about screwing the thing up. I think this thing's going
> to sell like hotcakes.

exactly.

> And I think Apple's going to come up with a small-market
> or enterprise app distribution system. If a business wants
> to buy a thousand of these things and have a custom app which
> is only necessary for that business's employees, it seems
> like a no-brainer that Apple's going to make it easy for that
> business to write a custom app and distribute it only to iPads
> that they buy for their employees -- without going through the
> Apple store to do it. It's too big a potential market to
> ignore.

they already have. it's called the enterprise developer program.
From: BreadWithSpam on 22 Mar 2010 02:41
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes:
> In article <yob4ok8khlx.fsf(a)panix1.panix.com>,
> <BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net> wrote:
>
> > > what do you want to do that you can't do because of a walled garden?
> >
> > Buy and install software that Apple hasn't approved and
> > isn't distributing through their App store. Without jailbreaking
> > the device.
>
> such as which software? what *can't* you do right now? specifically.

Play videos in formats other than the few that Apple allows,
just off the top of my head.

The truth is that there is little about the current crop
of apps which bothers me. My personal use needs are generally
adequately met by the defaults and the App store apps. I'd
like another browser (ie. one not built on WebKit), and I'd
like better scrolling, and perhaps an alternative e-mail app,
but none of the things really bother me all that much.

But I'm open-minded enough to allow for the fact that other
folks might have greater needs or other desires than I have.

> > But any regular app - something which can't crash the whole
> > machine but only the normal application space - there should
> > be a legit way to get such an app without the App store.
>
> you can always write it yourself or hire someone to do it. you just
> can't sell it on the apps store.

Or really distribute it in any practical way.

> > And I think Apple's going to come up with a small-market
> > or enterprise app distribution system. If a business wants
> > to buy a thousand of these things and have a custom app which
> > is only necessary for that business's employees, it seems
> > like a no-brainer that Apple's going to make it easy for that
> > business to write a custom app and distribute it only to iPads
> > that they buy for their employees -- without going through the
> > Apple store to do it. It's too big a potential market to
> > ignore.
>
> they already have. it's called the enterprise developer program.

It's really not quite as open as I'd hope for:

Deploy proprietary, in-house applications to authorized users in
your company, the iPhone Developer Enterprise Program is available
to companies with 500 or more employees and a Dun & Bradstreet
number.

That's a big hurdle. But you're right - I misspoke above with
my "1000" number. Replace that with 200 and there's a problem.
I'd like to see no such restriction at all.

Again, with all this stuff, I think Apple's found a pretty good
middle ground on restrictions vs. stability and appliance-ness.
I just think they could do better.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
From: nospam on 22 Mar 2010 02:49
In article <yobzl20j1sq.fsf(a)panix1.panix.com>,
<BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net> wrote:

> Play videos in formats other than the few that Apple allows,
> just off the top of my head.

i don't see why an app can't do that. you won't be able to sync the
movies with itunes but they should still be playable from within the
app. there are apps that will stream alternate formats from another
computer.

> The truth is that there is little about the current crop
> of apps which bothers me. My personal use needs are generally
> adequately met by the defaults and the App store apps.

that's basically it. there are some edge cases that won't be met but it
works fine for most people.

> I'd like another browser (ie. one not built on WebKit), and I'd
> like better scrolling, and perhaps an alternative e-mail app,
> but none of the things really bother me all that much.

opera mini is expected and i agree on the email, it's not very good.

> That's a big hurdle. But you're right - I misspoke above with
> my "1000" number. Replace that with 200 and there's a problem.
> I'd like to see no such restriction at all.

the line has to be drawn somewhere. make it 200 and companies with 150
will complain. make it 150 and companies with 125 will complain.
From: Jeffrey Goldberg on 22 Mar 2010 08:39
On 2010-03-22 5:06 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <80oduaFkocU1(a)mid.individual.net> Jeffrey
> <nobody(a)goldmark.org> wrote:

>> MS does not do this. MS does not force you to purchase all your
>> software for their system from their store.

> Been living in a cave in Pakistan this past month? This is *exactly*
> what MSFT is doing.

I guess I have been living in a cave.
I wasn't even aware that MSFT was selling a phone, much less anything
about it.


--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Q: Certificates
Next: Strange new iTunes playback problems.