Why am I suddenly reminded of the sorts of excuses used to defend Apple trying to tear up the First Amendment?
man what
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Oh, I see you forgot when Apple decided to take a big dump over that whole quaint "freedom of the press" thing.
Why am I suddenly reminded of the sorts of excuses used to defend Apple trying to tear up the First Amendment?
man what
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Oh, I see you forgot when Apple decided to take a big dump over that whole quaint "freedom of the press" thing.
see, I never said "Apple sucks". you're reading in something that isn't there. I think apple overcharges, and I think that they keep draconian controls of their products, but I also think that they make quality stuff, just too locked down for my personal taste.
My point has to do with the locked down centralized marketplace for iPhones, where any application installed on an iPhone must be expressly approved by Apple, and then Apple is the ONLY entity allowed to sell those applications, and only through one central store. My problem with it is that it eliminates a lot of competition, on a software level, which i see as detrimental to that particular market.
This really requires for you to view a cellphone as a general "platform" like a PC. If you're relating it to any other consumer electronics device, your position is just nonsense. My Xbox does not allow for "open sourcing," nor does my PSP, nor does my DS, nor my DS, nor my shitty Palm cell phone, nor the fancy remote I bought for my home theater, my TV, my audio receiver, my Wii, my mixer (buying Kitchen-Aid certified attachments is expensive!), my microwave, etc etc etc
And, frankly, if you have a broad expectation for your cellphone to be a tiny general-use PC, then the iPhone isn't for you in the first place.
I'd really like someone to explain what's wrong with this.
Cause this makes far more sense then foaming at the mouth about a phone most of you don't even want to use.
I'm not foaming at the mouth, it's called a beard.
I'm not arguing about software development here, that is other people. I'm talking about software availability. All of those other things mentioned (with the possible exception of the Palm phone, because I am unfamiliar with WebOS) I know for a FACT that you have multiple choices in where you buy the software/parts from. And I know for a fact that PamOS allowed for this as well.
Going back to the video game console comparison, the fact that most video games are developed to be released on both Xbox and playstation certainly does not seem to have hurt the market.
I don't think it hurts the market but it certainly hurt Sony when FF13 ceased to be a PS3 exclusive, for example. It's pretty obvious that platform holders want exclusives, it is in their interest to have great games that their direct competitors don't, and they often deliberately use non-traditional architectures (such as the PS3's processor) to make it quite costly to develop simultaneously for two or more platforms and be able to achieve equal results on all of them.
I feel in many cases cross-platform development hurts the industry more than it helps. I like to point to EA Sports for an example, as they have refined the concept of cheap cross-platform game development to a science, and I think the results have not exactly been stellar. The market is now flooded with hundreds of sports games from a single publisher, which are not all that great, but they're comparatively cheap to produce and they're "good enough" in the sense that 4 drunk guys can have fun on the couch playing FIFA, so barely anyone else bothers to make sports games anymore.
Also, I am worried by your notion that Apple have a "right" to lock down what consumers are allowed to have. I know it's beating a dead horse, but I think it really is apt here; If Microsoft doesn't have the "right" to decide what web browser you can use with your OS (and in Europe, the issue wasn't even in lockig things down, it was in bundling) then why do you think Apple should have a "right" to decide ALL of your programs?
Apple has been quite clear from the beginning that the iPhone is their platform, the App Store is their store, and if you don't like the sound of that, choose some other device. And indeed, there are many other devices and platforms to choose from, consumers have plenty of choices, and as far as I can tell apple has been playing fair, apart from a bunch of dubious patents. Yay capitalism.
Microsoft quietly and deliberately pursued an agenda of an IBM compatible on every desk, with Microsoft software on it, everywhere, forever. They did not want consumers to have any choice in the matter. They denied that this was their goal, but secretly, they knew and admitted to themselves that it was. And then, when literally every desktop computer shipped with a Microsoft operating system, they attempted to leverage that state of affairs for their own benefit. They defended it by telling everyone that Windows becoming the dominant desktop system was some happy accident and that we were free to choose some other operating system, when in fact we had no such choice, and it had been their intention from the start for there to be no choice.
The comparison would only hold if apple's goal was control of all handhelds everywhere. It's not. It's about total control of devices which apple designs, engineers, and manufactures, and for which apple has the exclusive right to license and distribute applications. Which is what Apple has been all about from the beginning, since before the iPhone was a glint in Steve Jobs' eye.
I don't like the way that the guy tries to downplay the fact that he was making a profit (a small profit is still a profit) but yeah, that is kind of bullshit. I can understand Apple limiting the number of units sold per transaction, or even per person per store per day, but to issue a lifetime limit is a bit extreme. Nebulous limits are incredibly shady. If they are going to have a policy, it ought to be specific, and it ought to be posted.
That's pretty easy to figure out and not surprising at all. He tried to circumvent the 2 per person limit by creating a second account and ordering from that. It was discovered, so they told him he can't buy anymore. They did not give more information on it because that would most likely have opened doors to circumvent the policy again (since the guy did it once, he would probably do it again).
Honestly, I can't sympathize with the guy. People are waiting in line for this thing, and a lot of stores are out of stock, and he tries to cheat his way into buying more than 1 or 2.
And he was fucking dumb as hell too. Of course your parents can buy one for you, you dumbshit. There's no way Apple can track that.
A limit at one time I can understand perfectly well, but I didn't know there was a lifetime limit on purchases. I'm no fan of Apple, but I am with Perp on this. Certainly keeps the opportunistic dbags who just flip that shit down.
Apple has been quite clear from the beginning that the iPhone is their platform, the App Store is their store...Microsoft quietly and deliberately pursued an agenda of having a Microsoft operating system on every computer, from every manufacturer, everywhere, forever.
First off, if you don't think that Apple WANTS every person to own an iPhone, you're a goose.
Secondly, the fact that Apple doesn't hide what they are doing doesn't make what they are doing okay if what they are doing would otherwise not be okay.
Also, it is probably not a lifetime limit. Last time I checked, Apple doesn't track SSNs or anything like that - just credit cards, at most. So at any time he can go make a brand new account, use a different name if he has to, and use a different card, and they will sell him one.
That's pretty easy to figure out and not surprising at all. He tried to circumvent the 2 per person limit by creating a second account and ordering from that. It was discovered, so they told him he can't buy anymore. They did not give more information on it because that would most likely have opened doors to circumvent the policy again (since the guy did it once, he would probably do it again).
Honestly, I can't sympathize with the guy. People are waiting in line for this thing, and a lot of stores are out of stock, and he tries to cheat his way into buying more than 1 or 2.
And he was fucking dumb as hell too. Of course your parents can buy one for you, you dumbshit. There's no way Apple can track that.
Did you read the thing? The guy bought way more than two.
And, as I said, it is valid for a store to prevent a single customer from buying out their entire stock in order to create a shortage, but for a company to issue a long term ban on an individual from purchasing a particular product at all, that is a bit much. If he has the money to pay for it, and he is making the purchases in relatively low quantities compared to the existing stock (two at a time), and he is NOT disobeying any posted policy, that is a bit harsh.
Also, it is probably not a lifetime limit. Last time I checked, Apple doesn't track SSNs or anything like that - just credit cards, at most. So at any time he can go make a brand new account, use a different name if he has to, and use a different card, and they will sell him one.
That is a lot of work to go through to buy a thing.
I would argue that method of purchasing Apple products doesn't "just work"
First off, if you don't think that Apple WANTS every person to own an iPhone, you're a goose.
And there isn't a problem with that if people want it. It only becomes a problem if they demonstrably force out other phone options that people want. Which you haven't demonstrated in any way other than a hypothetical possibility.
I mean, if your only choice right now were an iPhone or trac phone you might have a point. But it's not.
Maybe. But again, that's not the point. The point is that the guy tried to circumvent the company's policy, got caught, and got banned.
Frankly I don't see anything wrong with that. 2 per day is okay I guess, but trying to squeeze in one more using a separate account? I think he brought the "ban" upon himself. And I put that in quotes because, like I said, it should be fairly easy to create another account.
edit: I'm also considering how honest and forthcoming he's being here. He admits to charging his forum friends extra to cover shipping and whatnot, then says "with a little left over for unexpected costs". So basically he's making money off of selling iPads.
First off, if you don't think that Apple WANTS every person to own an iPhone, you're a goose.
And there isn't a problem with that if people want it. It only becomes a problem if they demonstrably force out other phone options that people want. Which you haven't demonstrated in any way other than a hypothetical possibility.
I mean, if your only choice right now were an iPhone or trac phone you might have a point. But it's not.
Where did I say it was a problem? I was just showing that Apple and MSoft are not at all dissimilar in their desires.
If there's no problem then there's not much point to this thread other than what seems to be people complaining about a phone they don't plan on using.
First off, if you don't think that Apple WANTS every person to own an iPhone, you're a goose.
And there isn't a problem with that if people want it. It only becomes a problem if they demonstrably force out other phone options that people want. Which you haven't demonstrated in any way other than a hypothetical possibility.
I mean, if your only choice right now were an iPhone or trac phone you might have a point. But it's not.
The point is that you don't want it to get to that point, and their actions have the ability to allow them to leverage their user base in a deleterious manner. And the development environment restrictions are just the tip of the iceberg - I notice that nobody's been in a hurry to defend how Apple's guaranteed that iAd will be the only ad serving platform anyone will want to use....
Maybe. But again, that's not the point. The point is that the guy tried to circumvent the company's policy, got caught, and got banned.
Frankly I don't see anything wrong with that. 2 per day is okay I guess, but trying to squeeze in one more using a separate account? I think he brought the "ban" upon himself. And I put that in quotes because, like I said, it should be fairly easy to create another account.
Where did he circumvent the policy? Which policy? The guys in the store refused to tell him the policy, in fact (you defended this a moment ago, saying that if he didn't know the policy he couldn't find loopholes in it. That is a VERY scary angle to be thinking in.)
Again, you didn't read the article. He had purchased ZERO units that day. He had reserved a unit previously, went in to the store to pick it up, and while he was there, put in a reservation for another unit. A reservation is NOT a purchase.
If the Store had come forward and said "because our stock has been getting low, we're asking customers who have perviously purchased units to hold off on purchasing extras until folks who haven't purchased any yet get a chance." I would have zero problem. That is NOT what they said. What they said is this:
“I’m sorry sir, but you have reached your lifetime limit of iPad purchases and will not be allowed to buy any more.”
The point is that you don't want it to get to that point
Sorry, you don't get to punish companies for crimes they haven't committed. That you think the government should is rather hilarious given your Minority Report rantings in another thread just a day ago.
If there's no problem then there's not much point to this thread other than what seems to be people complaining about a phone they don't plan on using.
So stop reading the thread if you think it has no point.
First off, if you don't think that Apple WANTS every person to own an iPhone, you're a goose.
And there isn't a problem with that if people want it. It only becomes a problem if they demonstrably force out other phone options that people want. Which you haven't demonstrated in any way other than a hypothetical possibility.
I mean, if your only choice right now were an iPhone or trac phone you might have a point. But it's not.
The point is that you don't want it to get to that point, and their actions have the ability to allow them to leverage their user base in a deleterious manner. And the development environment restrictions are just the tip of the iceberg - I notice that nobody's been in a hurry to defend how Apple's guaranteed that iAd will be the only ad serving platform anyone will want to use....
Because defending iAd is a no-brainer. I don't want third party ads in my apps because the vast majority are fucking awful - they are disruptive, irrelevant, and destroy the overall flow I expect from a mobile application.
iAd is Apple's way of standardizing their applications. As a consumer, I like it. As a developer, I fucking love it.
If there's no problem then there's not much point to this thread other than what seems to be people complaining about a phone they don't plan on using.
So stop reading the thread if you think it has no point.
I'm rather interested since I plan to buy one soon. I'd like to talk about the topic.
I just didn't realize the topic was actually about fanboyism. My mistake.
First off, if you don't think that Apple WANTS every person to own an iPhone, you're a goose.
And there isn't a problem with that if people want it. It only becomes a problem if they demonstrably force out other phone options that people want. Which you haven't demonstrated in any way other than a hypothetical possibility.
I mean, if your only choice right now were an iPhone or trac phone you might have a point. But it's not.
The point is that you don't want it to get to that point, and their actions have the ability to allow them to leverage their user base in a deleterious manner. And the development environment restrictions are just the tip of the iceberg - I notice that nobody's been in a hurry to defend how Apple's guaranteed that iAd will be the only ad serving platform anyone will want to use....
Because defending iAd is a no-brainer. I don't want third party ads in my apps because the vast majority are fucking awful - they are disruptive, irrelevant, and destroy the overall flow I expect from a mobile application.
iAd is Apple's way of standardizing their applications. As a consumer, I like it. As a developer, I fucking love it.
The fact that Apple has put iAd forward is great.
You seem to be saying you would prefer iAd to be the ONLY option, though. The problem with that is that you are artificially limiting things, and potentially stifling the development of something that could be even BETTER than iAd.
If third party ads are awful in comparison, then consumers will stop buying apps with third party ads, and developers will switch over to iAd naturally. If the issue is clear cut, then there's no reason to force it.
Maybe. But again, that's not the point. The point is that the guy tried to circumvent the company's policy, got caught, and got banned.
Frankly I don't see anything wrong with that. 2 per day is okay I guess, but trying to squeeze in one more using a separate account? I think he brought the "ban" upon himself. And I put that in quotes because, like I said, it should be fairly easy to create another account.
Where did he circumvent the policy? Which policy? The guys in the store refused to tell him the policy, in fact (you defended this a moment ago, saying that if he didn't know the policy he couldn't find loopholes in it. That is a VERY scary angle to be thinking in.)
Again, you didn't read the article. He had purchased ZERO units that day. He had reserved a unit previously, went in to the store to pick it up, and while he was there, put in a reservation for another unit. A reservation is NOT a purchase.
If the Store had come forward and said "because our stock has been getting low, we're asking customers who have perviously purchased units to hold off on purchasing extras until folks who haven't purchased any yet get a chance." I would have zero problem. That is NOT what they said. What they said is this:
“I’m sorry sir, but you have reached your lifetime limit of iPad purchases and will not be allowed to buy any more.”
Evander, read the article.
He was charging mark up for the iPads, no matter how small.
In other words, HE WAS ACTING AS AN UNAUTHORIZED RESELLER.
That is most likely what they meant by him reaching his lifetime purchases. Because there really is no legitimate person why a person would keep buying 2 iPads per day, everyday, unless he was selling them to other people (like a lot of people are doing on eBay).
First off, if you don't think that Apple WANTS every person to own an iPhone, you're a goose.
And there isn't a problem with that if people want it. It only becomes a problem if they demonstrably force out other phone options that people want. Which you haven't demonstrated in any way other than a hypothetical possibility.
I mean, if your only choice right now were an iPhone or trac phone you might have a point. But it's not.
The point is that you don't want it to get to that point, and their actions have the ability to allow them to leverage their user base in a deleterious manner. And the development environment restrictions are just the tip of the iceberg - I notice that nobody's been in a hurry to defend how Apple's guaranteed that iAd will be the only ad serving platform anyone will want to use....
Because defending iAd is a no-brainer. I don't want third party ads in my apps because the vast majority are fucking awful - they are disruptive, irrelevant, and destroy the overall flow I expect from a mobile application.
iAd is Apple's way of standardizing their applications. As a consumer, I like it. As a developer, I fucking love it.
If iAd is so superior, why is Apple afraid to win in the marketplace? And as a developer, you shoud hate this fucking policy, since it takes away one of the best tools you have for improving your software.
First off, if you don't think that Apple WANTS every person to own an iPhone, you're a goose.
Well, obviously commercial success is the overriding goal. Strictly controlling the platform is simply a means that end, and obviously it works well for them. But not everyone is cool with this, and the smartphone market remains fiercely competitive as a result.
The comparison to Microsoft antitrust is simply not accurate. Apple have not secretly tried to bully smartphone manufacturers and software developers into supporting their platform, and they do not appear to be pursuing an agenda of every smartphone in every store being an iPhone, at least, not any more than RIM wants a BlackBerry in everyone's pocket.
We can all plainly see that Android has emerged as a worthy competitor to iPhone. They have achieved this by adopting a different philosophy every step of the way, carving out their own niche and catering to the needs and desires of a certain audience. Most likely, the two platforms will co-exist for the forseeable future. Who knows, maybe one day enough people will get sick of Apple's anti-free-speech agenda or whatever, and Android will become the top dog. I mean you seem to be all about free markets, so let the market decide.
Maybe. But again, that's not the point. The point is that the guy tried to circumvent the company's policy, got caught, and got banned.
Frankly I don't see anything wrong with that. 2 per day is okay I guess, but trying to squeeze in one more using a separate account? I think he brought the "ban" upon himself. And I put that in quotes because, like I said, it should be fairly easy to create another account.
Where did he circumvent the policy? Which policy? The guys in the store refused to tell him the policy, in fact (you defended this a moment ago, saying that if he didn't know the policy he couldn't find loopholes in it. That is a VERY scary angle to be thinking in.)
Again, you didn't read the article. He had purchased ZERO units that day. He had reserved a unit previously, went in to the store to pick it up, and while he was there, put in a reservation for another unit. A reservation is NOT a purchase.
If the Store had come forward and said "because our stock has been getting low, we're asking customers who have perviously purchased units to hold off on purchasing extras until folks who haven't purchased any yet get a chance." I would have zero problem. That is NOT what they said. What they said is this:
“I’m sorry sir, but you have reached your lifetime limit of iPad purchases and will not be allowed to buy any more.”
Evander, read the article.
He was charging mark up for the iPads, no matter how small.
In other words, HE WAS ACTING AS AN UNAUTHORIZED RESELLER.
That is most likely what they meant by him reaching his lifetime purchases. Because there really is no legitimate person why a person would keep buying 2 iPads per day, everyday, unless he was selling them to other people (like a lot of people are doing on eBay).
That first sale doctrine has to really chap Apple's ass, huh?
If third party ads are awful in comparison, then consumers will stop buying apps with third party ads, and developers will switch over to iAd naturally. If the issue is clear cut, then there's no reason to force it.
The problem is that the existence of awful third-party apps aren't really enough of a reason to not buy the app itself, but it still hurts the overall experience of the platform.
And honestly dude, people keep watching their favorite TV shows on TV despite the moronic ads that networks place in the middle. Do you really expect them to not buy apps because of awful looking ads?
Also also, you are neglecting one crucial detail: the ads in iAd themselves are mini-applications. When you click on a Nike iAd for example, it launches it's own mini-app where it lets you design your own shoe and shit. So there is functionality there that is enhanced way beyond what a third-party ad provider could give.
If there's no problem then there's not much point to this thread other than what seems to be people complaining about a phone they don't plan on using.
So stop reading the thread if you think it has no point.
I'm rather interested since I plan to buy one soon. I'd like to talk about the topic.
I just didn't realize the topic was actually about fanboyism. My mistake.
"plan to buy one" what "soon"?
Did you skip the OP of this thread? It was originally about the changes Apple made to its development guidlines, and has grown to be a larger discussion about how the iPhone handles software distrobution as well. At no point was it a dedicated discussion about whichever "one" you plan on buying soon.
If you want to find or start a thread about the thing you plan to buy, I have zero oppisition, but to come in to a thread that was about what it is currently discussing from the get go, and demand that discussion cease because you want to learn tips and tricks about your upcoming toy is a little silly.
I'm assuming that one of those is the "one" that you are planning on purchasing, and those particular threads, unlike this one, were created for consumers to discuss the product.
If third party ads are awful in comparison, then consumers will stop buying apps with third party ads, and developers will switch over to iAd naturally. If the issue is clear cut, then there's no reason to force it.
The problem is that the existence of awful third-party apps aren't really enough of a reason to not buy the app itself, but it still hurts the overall experience of the platform.
And honestly dude, people keep watching their favorite TV shows on TV despite the moronic ads that networks place in the middle. Do you really expect them to not buy apps because of awful looking ads?
Also also, you are neglecting one crucial detail: the ads in iAd themselves are mini-applications. When you click on a Nike iAd for example, it launches it's own mini-app where it lets you design your own shoe and shit. So there is functionality there that is enhanced way beyond what a third-party ad provider could give.
So, according to what you're saying iAd should beat any other ad platform hands down.
If third party ads are awful in comparison, then consumers will stop buying apps with third party ads, and developers will switch over to iAd naturally. If the issue is clear cut, then there's no reason to force it.
The problem is that the existence of awful third-party apps aren't really enough of a reason to not buy the app itself, but it still hurts the overall experience of the platform.
And honestly dude, people keep watching their favorite TV shows on TV despite the moronic ads that networks place in the middle. Do you really expect them to not buy apps because of awful looking ads?
Also also, you are neglecting one crucial detail: the ads in iAd themselves are mini-applications. When you click on a Nike iAd for example, it launches it's own mini-app where it lets you design your own shoe and shit. So there is functionality there that is enhanced way beyond what a third-party ad provider could give.
If the ads aren't awful enough to upset consumers, then why should they have to go away?
You talk about "experience", but if consumers don't mind them, they they aren't really hurting the experience, are they?
Like I said, I think iAd sounds great. What I don't like is the precedent that Apple sets by saying that now that they have a proprietary way of doing a thing, only their way is allowed. The reason that I don't like this, despite not being an iPhone owner myself, is because in the past it has been shown that other companies have followed similar precedents set by Apple, and I do not want to see the same types of lockdowns occuring on devices that I own.
If third party ads are awful in comparison, then consumers will stop buying apps with third party ads, and developers will switch over to iAd naturally. If the issue is clear cut, then there's no reason to force it.
The problem is that the existence of awful third-party apps aren't really enough of a reason to not buy the app itself, but it still hurts the overall experience of the platform.
And honestly dude, people keep watching their favorite TV shows on TV despite the moronic ads that networks place in the middle. Do you really expect them to not buy apps because of awful looking ads?
Also also, you are neglecting one crucial detail: the ads in iAd themselves are mini-applications. When you click on a Nike iAd for example, it launches it's own mini-app where it lets you design your own shoe and shit. So there is functionality there that is enhanced way beyond what a third-party ad provider could give.
So, according to what you're saying iAd should beat any other ad platform hands down.
Then why not do it fairly?
I already explained it. :?
iAd serves several purposes. One is to enhance functionality of ads by giving them the ability to host their own mini-apps. Another is to normalize and optimize the user interactions with advertisements since those inevitably are tied to the overall user experience with the platform. Therefore it is in Apple's best interest (and arguably their consumers' best interest as well) to make sure that only high quality ads can appear in Apple applications.
Again, their house, their rules. Honestly AngelHedgie, I've read most of your posts in this thread, and you just come across as a little kid who doesn't like the house rules. Well, if you don't, you can get out of the house. And if you're already outside (i.e. you don't own any Apple products), what purpose does complaining from the outside serve? Are you jealous of the fact that people are having a blast inside?
Did you skip the OP of this thread? It was originally about the changes Apple made to its development guidlines, and has grown to be a larger discussion about how the iPhone handles software distrobution as well. At no point was it a dedicated discussion about whichever "one" you plan on buying soon.
Could you explain how the hypothetical nonexistent evil monopoly they currently have ties in to that?
insulting drivel
I'm interested in the topic because I'm buying an iPhone. Forgot you had difficulty inferring information.
Maybe. But again, that's not the point. The point is that the guy tried to circumvent the company's policy, got caught, and got banned.
Frankly I don't see anything wrong with that. 2 per day is okay I guess, but trying to squeeze in one more using a separate account? I think he brought the "ban" upon himself. And I put that in quotes because, like I said, it should be fairly easy to create another account.
Where did he circumvent the policy? Which policy? The guys in the store refused to tell him the policy, in fact (you defended this a moment ago, saying that if he didn't know the policy he couldn't find loopholes in it. That is a VERY scary angle to be thinking in.)
Again, you didn't read the article. He had purchased ZERO units that day. He had reserved a unit previously, went in to the store to pick it up, and while he was there, put in a reservation for another unit. A reservation is NOT a purchase.
If the Store had come forward and said "because our stock has been getting low, we're asking customers who have perviously purchased units to hold off on purchasing extras until folks who haven't purchased any yet get a chance." I would have zero problem. That is NOT what they said. What they said is this:
“I’m sorry sir, but you have reached your lifetime limit of iPad purchases and will not be allowed to buy any more.”
Evander, read the article.
He was charging mark up for the iPads, no matter how small.
In other words, HE WAS ACTING AS AN UNAUTHORIZED RESELLER.
That is most likely what they meant by him reaching his lifetime purchases. Because there really is no legitimate person why a person would keep buying 2 iPads per day, everyday, unless he was selling them to other people (like a lot of people are doing on eBay).
So you not only skipped chunks of my article, you also skipped the post where I complained about the guy making a profit too?
If they had caught him reselling, and locked him down for that reason, that would be one thing. I work retail, I would have come down on their side.
But they didn't. At least that's not what they said. What they said was "lifetime limit", and refused to tell him any more about the policy.
Did you skip the OP of this thread? It was originally about the changes Apple made to its development guidlines, and has grown to be a larger discussion about how the iPhone handles software distrobution as well. At no point was it a dedicated discussion about whichever "one" you plan on buying soon.
Could you explain how the hypothetical nonexistent evil monopoly they currently have ties in to that?
insulting drivel
I'm interested in the topic because I'm buying an iPhone. Forgot you had difficulty inferring information.
You are at once both interested in this topic and believe that the topic is pointless?
It would appear that if ANYONE is here just to complain, it is you.
If the ads aren't awful enough to upset consumers, then why should they have to go away?
You talk about "experience", but if consumers don't mind them, they they aren't really hurting the experience, are they?[/quote]
Well, they are. As Steve Jobs explained, Apple found out that the vast majority of users don't click the vast majority of ads. So essentially you have all this junk in your app that, due to its low quality and disruptive nature, serves no purpose other than taking up space and being terrible in general. Users don't have to get "upset" about something for that thing to hurt user experience.
Posts
Cite please.
Google "Apple v. Does" sometime.
I'm not foaming at the mouth, it's called a beard.
I'm not arguing about software development here, that is other people. I'm talking about software availability. All of those other things mentioned (with the possible exception of the Palm phone, because I am unfamiliar with WebOS) I know for a FACT that you have multiple choices in where you buy the software/parts from. And I know for a fact that PamOS allowed for this as well.
I feel in many cases cross-platform development hurts the industry more than it helps. I like to point to EA Sports for an example, as they have refined the concept of cheap cross-platform game development to a science, and I think the results have not exactly been stellar. The market is now flooded with hundreds of sports games from a single publisher, which are not all that great, but they're comparatively cheap to produce and they're "good enough" in the sense that 4 drunk guys can have fun on the couch playing FIFA, so barely anyone else bothers to make sports games anymore.
Apple has been quite clear from the beginning that the iPhone is their platform, the App Store is their store, and if you don't like the sound of that, choose some other device. And indeed, there are many other devices and platforms to choose from, consumers have plenty of choices, and as far as I can tell apple has been playing fair, apart from a bunch of dubious patents. Yay capitalism.
Microsoft quietly and deliberately pursued an agenda of an IBM compatible on every desk, with Microsoft software on it, everywhere, forever. They did not want consumers to have any choice in the matter. They denied that this was their goal, but secretly, they knew and admitted to themselves that it was. And then, when literally every desktop computer shipped with a Microsoft operating system, they attempted to leverage that state of affairs for their own benefit. They defended it by telling everyone that Windows becoming the dominant desktop system was some happy accident and that we were free to choose some other operating system, when in fact we had no such choice, and it had been their intention from the start for there to be no choice.
The comparison would only hold if apple's goal was control of all handhelds everywhere. It's not. It's about total control of devices which apple designs, engineers, and manufactures, and for which apple has the exclusive right to license and distribute applications. Which is what Apple has been all about from the beginning, since before the iPhone was a glint in Steve Jobs' eye.
My favorite comment was... the user who said "You've reached your lifetime limit on cauliflower. Please wait till your next lifetime to buy again."
I've never been an apple fan but this is just icing on the cake for the "evil" corporation Apple has become.
I don't like the way that the guy tries to downplay the fact that he was making a profit (a small profit is still a profit) but yeah, that is kind of bullshit. I can understand Apple limiting the number of units sold per transaction, or even per person per store per day, but to issue a lifetime limit is a bit extreme. Nebulous limits are incredibly shady. If they are going to have a policy, it ought to be specific, and it ought to be posted.
That's pretty easy to figure out and not surprising at all. He tried to circumvent the 2 per person limit by creating a second account and ordering from that. It was discovered, so they told him he can't buy anymore. They did not give more information on it because that would most likely have opened doors to circumvent the policy again (since the guy did it once, he would probably do it again).
Honestly, I can't sympathize with the guy. People are waiting in line for this thing, and a lot of stores are out of stock, and he tries to cheat his way into buying more than 1 or 2.
And he was fucking dumb as hell too. Of course your parents can buy one for you, you dumbshit. There's no way Apple can track that.
A limit at one time I can understand perfectly well, but I didn't know there was a lifetime limit on purchases. I'm no fan of Apple, but I am with Perp on this. Certainly keeps the opportunistic dbags who just flip that shit down.
Yeah dude, limiting the sale of an item so that, you know, everyone can buy their fair share is totally evil.
First off, if you don't think that Apple WANTS every person to own an iPhone, you're a goose.
Secondly, the fact that Apple doesn't hide what they are doing doesn't make what they are doing okay if what they are doing would otherwise not be okay.
Did you read the thing? The guy bought way more than two.
And, as I said, it is valid for a store to prevent a single customer from buying out their entire stock in order to create a shortage, but for a company to issue a long term ban on an individual from purchasing a particular product at all, that is a bit much. If he has the money to pay for it, and he is making the purchases in relatively low quantities compared to the existing stock (two at a time), and he is NOT disobeying any posted policy, that is a bit harsh.
That is a lot of work to go through to buy a thing.
I would argue that method of purchasing Apple products doesn't "just work"
And there isn't a problem with that if people want it. It only becomes a problem if they demonstrably force out other phone options that people want. Which you haven't demonstrated in any way other than a hypothetical possibility.
I mean, if your only choice right now were an iPhone or trac phone you might have a point. But it's not.
Frankly I don't see anything wrong with that. 2 per day is okay I guess, but trying to squeeze in one more using a separate account? I think he brought the "ban" upon himself. And I put that in quotes because, like I said, it should be fairly easy to create another account.
edit: I'm also considering how honest and forthcoming he's being here. He admits to charging his forum friends extra to cover shipping and whatnot, then says "with a little left over for unexpected costs". So basically he's making money off of selling iPads.
Where did I say it was a problem? I was just showing that Apple and MSoft are not at all dissimilar in their desires.
The point is that you don't want it to get to that point, and their actions have the ability to allow them to leverage their user base in a deleterious manner. And the development environment restrictions are just the tip of the iceberg - I notice that nobody's been in a hurry to defend how Apple's guaranteed that iAd will be the only ad serving platform anyone will want to use....
Where did he circumvent the policy? Which policy? The guys in the store refused to tell him the policy, in fact (you defended this a moment ago, saying that if he didn't know the policy he couldn't find loopholes in it. That is a VERY scary angle to be thinking in.)
Again, you didn't read the article. He had purchased ZERO units that day. He had reserved a unit previously, went in to the store to pick it up, and while he was there, put in a reservation for another unit. A reservation is NOT a purchase.
If the Store had come forward and said "because our stock has been getting low, we're asking customers who have perviously purchased units to hold off on purchasing extras until folks who haven't purchased any yet get a chance." I would have zero problem. That is NOT what they said. What they said is this:
Sorry, you don't get to punish companies for crimes they haven't committed. That you think the government should is rather hilarious given your Minority Report rantings in another thread just a day ago.
So stop reading the thread if you think it has no point.
Because defending iAd is a no-brainer. I don't want third party ads in my apps because the vast majority are fucking awful - they are disruptive, irrelevant, and destroy the overall flow I expect from a mobile application.
iAd is Apple's way of standardizing their applications. As a consumer, I like it. As a developer, I fucking love it.
I'm rather interested since I plan to buy one soon. I'd like to talk about the topic.
I just didn't realize the topic was actually about fanboyism. My mistake.
The fact that Apple has put iAd forward is great.
You seem to be saying you would prefer iAd to be the ONLY option, though. The problem with that is that you are artificially limiting things, and potentially stifling the development of something that could be even BETTER than iAd.
If third party ads are awful in comparison, then consumers will stop buying apps with third party ads, and developers will switch over to iAd naturally. If the issue is clear cut, then there's no reason to force it.
Evander, read the article.
He was charging mark up for the iPads, no matter how small.
In other words, HE WAS ACTING AS AN UNAUTHORIZED RESELLER.
That is most likely what they meant by him reaching his lifetime purchases. Because there really is no legitimate person why a person would keep buying 2 iPads per day, everyday, unless he was selling them to other people (like a lot of people are doing on eBay).
If iAd is so superior, why is Apple afraid to win in the marketplace? And as a developer, you shoud hate this fucking policy, since it takes away one of the best tools you have for improving your software.
The comparison to Microsoft antitrust is simply not accurate. Apple have not secretly tried to bully smartphone manufacturers and software developers into supporting their platform, and they do not appear to be pursuing an agenda of every smartphone in every store being an iPhone, at least, not any more than RIM wants a BlackBerry in everyone's pocket.
We can all plainly see that Android has emerged as a worthy competitor to iPhone. They have achieved this by adopting a different philosophy every step of the way, carving out their own niche and catering to the needs and desires of a certain audience. Most likely, the two platforms will co-exist for the forseeable future. Who knows, maybe one day enough people will get sick of Apple's anti-free-speech agenda or whatever, and Android will become the top dog. I mean you seem to be all about free markets, so let the market decide.
That first sale doctrine has to really chap Apple's ass, huh?
The problem is that the existence of awful third-party apps aren't really enough of a reason to not buy the app itself, but it still hurts the overall experience of the platform.
And honestly dude, people keep watching their favorite TV shows on TV despite the moronic ads that networks place in the middle. Do you really expect them to not buy apps because of awful looking ads?
Also also, you are neglecting one crucial detail: the ads in iAd themselves are mini-applications. When you click on a Nike iAd for example, it launches it's own mini-app where it lets you design your own shoe and shit. So there is functionality there that is enhanced way beyond what a third-party ad provider could give.
"plan to buy one" what "soon"?
Did you skip the OP of this thread? It was originally about the changes Apple made to its development guidlines, and has grown to be a larger discussion about how the iPhone handles software distrobution as well. At no point was it a dedicated discussion about whichever "one" you plan on buying soon.
If you want to find or start a thread about the thing you plan to buy, I have zero oppisition, but to come in to a thread that was about what it is currently discussing from the get go, and demand that discussion cease because you want to learn tips and tricks about your upcoming toy is a little silly.
I'd recommend you check out one of these:
New iPhone
iPad
I'm assuming that one of those is the "one" that you are planning on purchasing, and those particular threads, unlike this one, were created for consumers to discuss the product.
So, according to what you're saying iAd should beat any other ad platform hands down.
Then why not do it fairly?
If the ads aren't awful enough to upset consumers, then why should they have to go away?
You talk about "experience", but if consumers don't mind them, they they aren't really hurting the experience, are they?
Like I said, I think iAd sounds great. What I don't like is the precedent that Apple sets by saying that now that they have a proprietary way of doing a thing, only their way is allowed. The reason that I don't like this, despite not being an iPhone owner myself, is because in the past it has been shown that other companies have followed similar precedents set by Apple, and I do not want to see the same types of lockdowns occuring on devices that I own.
I already explained it. :?
iAd serves several purposes. One is to enhance functionality of ads by giving them the ability to host their own mini-apps. Another is to normalize and optimize the user interactions with advertisements since those inevitably are tied to the overall user experience with the platform. Therefore it is in Apple's best interest (and arguably their consumers' best interest as well) to make sure that only high quality ads can appear in Apple applications.
Again, their house, their rules. Honestly AngelHedgie, I've read most of your posts in this thread, and you just come across as a little kid who doesn't like the house rules. Well, if you don't, you can get out of the house. And if you're already outside (i.e. you don't own any Apple products), what purpose does complaining from the outside serve? Are you jealous of the fact that people are having a blast inside?
I'm interested in the topic because I'm buying an iPhone. Forgot you had difficulty inferring information.
So you not only skipped chunks of my article, you also skipped the post where I complained about the guy making a profit too?
If they had caught him reselling, and locked him down for that reason, that would be one thing. I work retail, I would have come down on their side.
But they didn't. At least that's not what they said. What they said was "lifetime limit", and refused to tell him any more about the policy.
Really, there is no good way to spin that.
You are at once both interested in this topic and believe that the topic is pointless?
It would appear that if ANYONE is here just to complain, it is you.
You talk about "experience", but if consumers don't mind them, they they aren't really hurting the experience, are they?[/quote]
Well, they are. As Steve Jobs explained, Apple found out that the vast majority of users don't click the vast majority of ads. So essentially you have all this junk in your app that, due to its low quality and disruptive nature, serves no purpose other than taking up space and being terrible in general. Users don't have to get "upset" about something for that thing to hurt user experience.