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.
So what you are telling me is that of the millions of iPhone users out there, Steve Jobs knows what they want better than any of them do themselves?
This is maybe at the core of where Apple rubs me the wrong way. Taste is, ultimately, subjective, and yet here is a whole cult of people insisting that one man in a black turtleneck has a singular vision that is the perfect fit for all users.
So you not only skipped chunks of my article, you also skipped the post where I complained about the guy making a profit too?
I read what you said. It didn't strike me as particularly important.
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.
This is most likely because the store clerks do not have the permission to explicitly accuse customers of being unauthorized resellers. Rather, if they suspect something like that (i.e. by seeing all those continuous purchases on the account/credit card), then they are given authority to act on it by denying future purchases and giving a blanket reason like "you have reached lifetime limit of purchases".
As far as I can tell you and AH are in fear of a nonexistent monopoly.
Why are you afraid of things that don't exist?
Is the topic then just about fear of something that doesn't exist?
Still haven't run out of straw?
I haven't been making legal claims about monopolies. I have been saying that Apple's practices are consumer negative, and comparing them to monopolies by extrapolating them out, and showing how, if these same practices were held across an entire market, rather than just a portion of it, there would be a need for regulation.
You must REALLY hate consumer advocacy websites, and dudes like Ralph Nader.
So you not only skipped chunks of my article, you also skipped the post where I complained about the guy making a profit too?
I read what you said. It didn't strike me as particularly important.
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.
This is most likely because the store clerks do not have the permission to explicitly accuse customers of being unauthorized resellers. Rather, if they suspect something like that (i.e. by seeing all those continuous purchases on the account/credit card), then they are given authority to act on it by denying future purchases and giving a blanket reason like "you have reached lifetime limit of purchases".
If they don't have the authority to tell him what is going on, then either he should be being shut down by some one with that authority, or he should be given the contact information of some one with that authority.
Saying "you have breached a policy, but I'm not allowed to tell you what that policy is" is not an acceptable behavior. If we, as a society, accept behavior like that, it could so easily be abused.
My issue here isn't that they wouldn't sell him the thing, it is HOW they went about it.
As far as I can tell you and AH are in fear of a nonexistent monopoly.
Why are you afraid of things that don't exist?
Is the topic then just about fear of something that doesn't exist?
Still haven't run out of straw?
I haven't been making legal claims about monopolies. I have been saying that Apple's practices are consumer negative, and comparing them to monopolies by extrapolating them out, and showing how, if these same practices were held across an entire market, rather than just a portion of it, there would be a need for regulation.
You must REALLY hate consumer advocacy websites, and dudes like Ralph Nader.
Holy shit E, you mean that a practice that might be acceptable on a smaller scale wouldn't be on a larger one? Man that econ class did you good.
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.
So what you are telling me is that of the millions of iPhone users out there, Steve Jobs knows what they want better than any of them do themselves?
Let me put it more clearly.
Let's say I buy an app. The app, in and of itself, is awesome. I get a lot of value out of it. I use it everyday, for a lot of different tasks. However, it has one problem: ads. These ads are pretty annoying because they are out of context, often irrelevant, and they have a tendency to not have any standard size. Sometimes they are too small. Sometimes they take the entire screen. I don't like them, but as a user, I can't do anything about it besides not buying apps from that company in the future, but I don't want to do that because their apps are very useful.
So I will welcome iAds with open arms because it will mean normalized, optimized, standardized ads. They are removing one of the things that is hurting my user experience, even though it is not necessarily hurting app sales.
This is maybe at the core of where Apple rubs me the wrong way. Taste is, ultimately, subjective, and yet here is a whole cult of people insisting that one man in a black turtleneck has a singular vision that is the perfect fit for all users.
I dislike the usage of your word "cult" and what it implies. If you're going to stoop to that level then we will not continue this conversation.
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.
So what you are telling me is that of the millions of iPhone users out there, Steve Jobs knows what they want better than any of them do themselves?
This is maybe at the core of where Apple rubs me the wrong way. Taste is, ultimately, subjective, and yet here is a whole cult of people insisting that one man in a black turtleneck has a singular vision that is the perfect fit for all users.
so don't fucking buy it then, christ
You get to have your open-source open-standard non-proprietary everyone-play-in-the-sandbox playground, and if anyone needs me I'll be over here with Steve's cock in my mouth.
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.
So what you are telling me is that of the millions of iPhone users out there, Steve Jobs knows what they want better than any of them do themselves?
This is maybe at the core of where Apple rubs me the wrong way. Taste is, ultimately, subjective, and yet here is a whole cult of people insisting that one man in a black turtleneck has a singular vision that is the perfect fit for all users.
so don't fucking buy it then, christ
So don't fucking read my posts, then.
I have said, multiple times, that the reason I care is because other companies have begun copying some of these practices (like apps for WP7 being limited to the centralized marketplace). I'd rather discuss my opposition now, before things like this become industry standard.
And they will fail because Windows Mobile is utter shit and the whole idea of Microsoft attempting to compete with Apple on Apple's own terms is just laughable
Meanwhile Android continues to be a great alternative so I really don't see what the big deal is.
If they don't have the authority to tell him what is going on, then either he should be being shut down by some one with that authority, or he should be given the contact information of some one with that authority.
You are way more upset about this than the guy.
In the comments section, he says:
"I don't think that I was wronged at all. I'm not even upset, nor do I think I was complaining. Just sharing a story that I thought was funny and ironic, but sometimes I forget this is the Internet and it's serious time, all the time.
I'm glad Apple has a system in place to stop hoarders. I've wanted shiny new gadgets in the past that were in short supply. Apple could be more consistent in catching hoarders though."
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.
Yeah, your desire to have the "user experience" doesn't give you the right to run roughshod over everyone else. Furthermore, your claims of "it's for the users" smacks of the same sort of sensibilities that you get from the folks who do things "for the children".
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?
No, I'm just fucking tired of dealing with the mess they leave outside. After Apple tried to wipe their ass with the First Amendment, I stopped giving them the benefit of the doubt. You think Apple's above using restrictions on developers as leverage to keep them from developing for other platforms? Or using their ban on ad platforms to cripple said platforms, making them unavailable for other platforms?
Despite what The Steve may clame, Apple does not exist within a closed ecosystem, and their actions impact others.
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.
Hey AH, you gonna explain how you think the government should break up monopolies that aren't monopolies?
If they don't have the authority to tell him what is going on, then either he should be being shut down by some one with that authority, or he should be given the contact information of some one with that authority.
You are way more upset about this than the guy.
In the comments section, he says:
"I don't think that I was wronged at all. I'm not even upset, nor do I think I was complaining. Just sharing a story that I thought was funny and ironic, but sometimes I forget this is the Internet and it's serious time, all the time.
I'm glad Apple has a system in place to stop hoarders. I've wanted shiny new gadgets in the past that were in short supply. Apple could be more consistent in catching hoarders though."
Or, you know, Apple could fucking stop the practices that lead to these frenzies.
You know, when Sony shipped the PS2, they recieved the brunt of the blame for the reselling that occured due to a inability to keep pace with demand. But when the same thing happens with an Apple product, it's suddently the resellers' fault.
And they will fail because Windows Mobile is utter shit and the whole idea of Microsoft attempting to compete with Apple on Apple's own terms is just laughable
Meanwhile Android continues to be a great alternative so I really don't see what the big deal is.
Who knows if they will fail. I would personally argue that in terms of media consumption, Zune puts forward a far more compelling product that iPod does, and that is going to be built right in. They also have XBox live integration, which will give them a bump. Allowing for the system to be running on multiple hardware iterations also allows the possibility of entry priced models, which will be a bigger draw than you might think.
I personally have no interest in picking up a WP7 phone, but there are enough potential reasons why they could actually take over some marketshare, and then, when you've got two large players both locking down software in the same way, things can multiply among the littler guys looking to emulate the big-boys.
I do not think that there is anything wrong with pointing out consumer negative behavior where I see it. At no point have a called the iPhone a bad device. At no point have I said that people shouldn't buy one or want to buy one. All I've done is state that their particular business model is consumer negative. If you don't care that it's consumer negative, then have yourself a ball.
If they don't have the authority to tell him what is going on, then either he should be being shut down by some one with that authority, or he should be given the contact information of some one with that authority.
You are way more upset about this than the guy.
In the comments section, he says:
"I don't think that I was wronged at all. I'm not even upset, nor do I think I was complaining. Just sharing a story that I thought was funny and ironic, but sometimes I forget this is the Internet and it's serious time, all the time.
I'm glad Apple has a system in place to stop hoarders. I've wanted shiny new gadgets in the past that were in short supply. Apple could be more consistent in catching hoarders though."
Or, you know, Apple could fucking stop the practices that lead to these frenzies.
You know, when Sony shipped the PS2, they recieved the brunt of the blame for the reselling that occured due to a inability to keep pace with demand. But when the same thing happens with an Apple product, it's suddently the resellers' fault.
Yeah, if only they overworked and abused the hell out of their third-world suppliers like Microsoft does. That way, maybe these supply shortages would not have happened.
If they don't have the authority to tell him what is going on, then either he should be being shut down by some one with that authority, or he should be given the contact information of some one with that authority.
You are way more upset about this than the guy.
In the comments section, he says:
"I don't think that I was wronged at all. I'm not even upset, nor do I think I was complaining. Just sharing a story that I thought was funny and ironic, but sometimes I forget this is the Internet and it's serious time, all the time.
I'm glad Apple has a system in place to stop hoarders. I've wanted shiny new gadgets in the past that were in short supply. Apple could be more consistent in catching hoarders though."
Or, you know, Apple could fucking stop the practices that lead to these frenzies.
You know, when Sony shipped the PS2, they recieved the brunt of the blame for the reselling that occured due to a inability to keep pace with demand. But when the same thing happens with an Apple product, it's suddently the resellers' fault.
Well, if we want to get in to THAT...
I'm not convinced that the current iPad shortage is real. There were wide reports about Apple having extra iPad stock all over the place at launch, and I think it hurt their image, so they decided to hold stock back now, in order make the device appear more popular.
This is just wild speculation, though, with nothing behind it.
If they don't have the authority to tell him what is going on, then either he should be being shut down by some one with that authority, or he should be given the contact information of some one with that authority.
You are way more upset about this than the guy.
In the comments section, he says:
"I don't think that I was wronged at all. I'm not even upset, nor do I think I was complaining. Just sharing a story that I thought was funny and ironic, but sometimes I forget this is the Internet and it's serious time, all the time.
I'm glad Apple has a system in place to stop hoarders. I've wanted shiny new gadgets in the past that were in short supply. Apple could be more consistent in catching hoarders though."
Or, you know, Apple could fucking stop the practices that lead to these frenzies.
You know, when Sony shipped the PS2, they recieved the brunt of the blame for the reselling that occured due to a inability to keep pace with demand. But when the same thing happens with an Apple product, it's suddently the resellers' fault.
Yeah, if only they overworked and abused the hell out of their third-world suppliers like Microsoft does. That way, maybe these supply shortages would not have happened.
They already employ contractors that drive their employees to suicide. That's not overworked enough for you?
Apple and Microsoft are both just as bad as each other. it is idiotic to pretend that one is "the good guy".
If they don't have the authority to tell him what is going on, then either he should be being shut down by some one with that authority, or he should be given the contact information of some one with that authority.
You are way more upset about this than the guy.
In the comments section, he says:
"I don't think that I was wronged at all. I'm not even upset, nor do I think I was complaining. Just sharing a story that I thought was funny and ironic, but sometimes I forget this is the Internet and it's serious time, all the time.
I'm glad Apple has a system in place to stop hoarders. I've wanted shiny new gadgets in the past that were in short supply. Apple could be more consistent in catching hoarders though."
Or, you know, Apple could fucking stop the practices that lead to these frenzies.
You know, when Sony shipped the PS2, they recieved the brunt of the blame for the reselling that occured due to a inability to keep pace with demand. But when the same thing happens with an Apple product, it's suddently the resellers' fault.
Yeah, if only they overworked and abused the hell out of their third-world suppliers like Microsoft does. That way, maybe these supply shortages would not have happened.
They already employ contractors that drive their employees to suicide. That's not overworked enough for you?
Apple and Microsoft are both just as bad as each other. it is idiotic to pretend that one is "the good guy".
The point I am making is that if one tries hard enough they can find faults in everything Apple (or Microsoft) does.
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.
Hey AH, you gonna explain how you think the government should break up monopolies that aren't monopolies?
It's nice to see you beat that strawman senseless. I'm not saying that Apple needs to be broken up - but when they start acting in ways that can allow them to leverage their extant base to harm their competitors, why shouldn't they be monitored, at the very least?
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?
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.
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.
No one seemed to notice this, but it was a surprise to me. I hadn't heard of this case before (and I'm usually pretty good about this--I'm one of the few people who remembers the class-action lawsuit against Sony for the PS2).
Sounds like pretty typical "chilling effect" stuff. Effective, I imagine, but typical, I want to say.
Who knows if they will fail. I would personally argue that in terms of media consumption, Zune puts forward a far more compelling product that iPod does, and that is going to be built right in. They also have XBox live integration, which will give them a bump. Allowing for the system to be running on multiple hardware iterations also allows the possibility of entry priced models, which will be a bigger draw than you might think.
I don't doubt that people will buy and be pleased by Phone 7 but Microsoft are clearly trying to compete with apple on their own turf. Windows Phone 7, it's the Windows Mobile you all love to hate, only this time we've borrowed a few ideas from Apple to make it more like the iPhone! But it's actually just the same old Windows with a shiny dashboard. It's untenable. They're trying to fill a niche that's already been filled. They're about three years late to the "shiny touchscreen phone that just works" party. And worst of all, they're trying to beat apple at their own game. It hasn't worked for them before and it won't work now.
I do not think that there is anything wrong with pointing out consumer negative behavior where I see it. At no point have a called the iPhone a bad device. At no point have I said that people shouldn't buy one or want to buy one. All I've done is state that their particular business model is consumer negative. If you don't care that it's consumer negative, then have yourself a ball.
Microsoft's weakest efforts are then they're trying to mimic Apple. Whatever goes on in their design rooms, it seems to basically kill the creativity and thinking process of those involved, judging by the output.
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.
Hey AH, you gonna explain how you think the government should break up monopolies that aren't monopolies?
It's nice to see you beat that strawman senseless. I'm not saying that Apple needs to be broken up - but when they start acting in ways that can allow them to leverage their extant base to harm their competitors, why shouldn't they be monitored, at the very least?
I think that this patent, if I'm reading it correctly (subsidized hardware) could actually do something really exciting for the market, and add a whole new kind of competition.
It's nice to see you beat that strawman senseless. I'm not saying that Apple needs to be broken up - but when they start acting in ways that can allow them to leverage their extant base to harm their competitors, why shouldn't they be monitored, at the very least?
You haven't actually shown this to harm competitors. Or even if they were, that they're doing so in a negative way. Purposely refusing to allow shitty software on machines you sell isn't some horrible thing. If that's how they want to set up their OS on the machines they're producing then that's how they get to set it up. Meanwhile the market is alive and well and full of dozens of other smart phones that you're claiming do everything an iPhone does and more.
Essentially you're doing your normal schtick of predicting doom at the first sign of a shadow.
Quid on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
As far as I can tell you and AH are in fear of a nonexistent monopoly.
Why are you afraid of things that don't exist?
Is the topic then just about fear of something that doesn't exist?
Still haven't run out of straw?
I haven't been making legal claims about monopolies. I have been saying that Apple's practices are consumer negative, and comparing them to monopolies by extrapolating them out, and showing how, if these same practices were held across an entire market, rather than just a portion of it, there would be a need for regulation.
I guess I don't see this. The video game console market - a very large market - employs roughly the same dynamics that Apple enforces on their phone. In fact, the only "cellphone company" that doesn't lock down their devices that I know of is Google, and they aren't even a real cellphone company.
Apple is going above and beyond what any other cellphone company has the balls to do.
The most poignant example is bluetooth. On other phones, users can send photos, ringtones, connect for gaming and chat via bluetooth. Apple gimped all these standard features. There really isn't enough recognition of how fucking absurd that is.
Comparisons to game consoles are inappropriate because a game console only serves one purpose while a smartphone is a pretty significant part of daily life with literally hundreds of different uses. It's essentially a mobile computer.
I personally "let them get away with it" by enabling them as a customer, but that's because they do still have the best mobile computing platform.
BTW how do all the people that complained about iPad lacking multitasking feel about 4.0 multitasking?
Uh, all those other features are also gimped on non-iPhone phones.
I haven't seen them gimped on any entry level Nokia phone. Maybe it's a US only thing? I remember having a sprint phone that was like that, and I assumed that was Sprint's aftermodding, like how providers put physical locks on top of sim card slots.
BTW how do all the people that complained about iPad lacking multitasking feel about 4.0 multitasking?
they dig out some other objection, because it's not really about the quality or capabilities of the device.
This.
Because I don't care if Pandora is really running in the background or not, so long as the music I opened Pandora to play continues to play when I am not directly using it. Same goes for Skype, etc.
The new line is "well it's not true multitasking," to which I reply "if it looks like it and acts like it, who cares if they are doing a shell trick if it functionally works exactly the same for the applications that need to make use of it"?
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Uh, all those other features are also gimped on non-iPhone phones.
I haven't seen them gimped on any entry level Nokia phone. Maybe it's a US only thing?
Cellphone providers in the US of A are usually abysmal in letting people have full control of their devices. Verizon up until recently was the very worst offender.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
As far as I can tell you and AH are in fear of a nonexistent monopoly.
Why are you afraid of things that don't exist?
Is the topic then just about fear of something that doesn't exist?
Still haven't run out of straw?
I haven't been making legal claims about monopolies. I have been saying that Apple's practices are consumer negative, and comparing them to monopolies by extrapolating them out, and showing how, if these same practices were held across an entire market, rather than just a portion of it, there would be a need for regulation.
I guess I don't see this. The video game console market - a very large market - employs roughly the same dynamics that Apple enforces on their phone. In fact, the only "cellphone company" that doesn't lock down their devices that I know of is Google, and they aren't even a real cellphone company.
You can buy Xbox games anywhere. THAT allows market forces to have an effect on prices.
I have SERIOUS objections to the PSP Go for the same reason I have issues with Apple's app market. Were this a PSP Go software thread, I'd be discussing that.
Posts
Why are you afraid of things that don't exist?
Is the topic then just about fear of something that doesn't exist?
So what you are telling me is that of the millions of iPhone users out there, Steve Jobs knows what they want better than any of them do themselves?
This is maybe at the core of where Apple rubs me the wrong way. Taste is, ultimately, subjective, and yet here is a whole cult of people insisting that one man in a black turtleneck has a singular vision that is the perfect fit for all users.
I read what you said. It didn't strike me as particularly important.
This is most likely because the store clerks do not have the permission to explicitly accuse customers of being unauthorized resellers. Rather, if they suspect something like that (i.e. by seeing all those continuous purchases on the account/credit card), then they are given authority to act on it by denying future purchases and giving a blanket reason like "you have reached lifetime limit of purchases".
Still haven't run out of straw?
I haven't been making legal claims about monopolies. I have been saying that Apple's practices are consumer negative, and comparing them to monopolies by extrapolating them out, and showing how, if these same practices were held across an entire market, rather than just a portion of it, there would be a need for regulation.
You must REALLY hate consumer advocacy websites, and dudes like Ralph Nader.
If they don't have the authority to tell him what is going on, then either he should be being shut down by some one with that authority, or he should be given the contact information of some one with that authority.
Saying "you have breached a policy, but I'm not allowed to tell you what that policy is" is not an acceptable behavior. If we, as a society, accept behavior like that, it could so easily be abused.
My issue here isn't that they wouldn't sell him the thing, it is HOW they went about it.
Holy shit E, you mean that a practice that might be acceptable on a smaller scale wouldn't be on a larger one? Man that econ class did you good.
Let me put it more clearly.
Let's say I buy an app. The app, in and of itself, is awesome. I get a lot of value out of it. I use it everyday, for a lot of different tasks. However, it has one problem: ads. These ads are pretty annoying because they are out of context, often irrelevant, and they have a tendency to not have any standard size. Sometimes they are too small. Sometimes they take the entire screen. I don't like them, but as a user, I can't do anything about it besides not buying apps from that company in the future, but I don't want to do that because their apps are very useful.
So I will welcome iAds with open arms because it will mean normalized, optimized, standardized ads. They are removing one of the things that is hurting my user experience, even though it is not necessarily hurting app sales.
I dislike the usage of your word "cult" and what it implies. If you're going to stoop to that level then we will not continue this conversation.
You get to have your open-source open-standard non-proprietary everyone-play-in-the-sandbox playground, and if anyone needs me I'll be over here with Steve's cock in my mouth.
So don't fucking read my posts, then.
I have said, multiple times, that the reason I care is because other companies have begun copying some of these practices (like apps for WP7 being limited to the centralized marketplace). I'd rather discuss my opposition now, before things like this become industry standard.
Meanwhile Android continues to be a great alternative so I really don't see what the big deal is.
You are way more upset about this than the guy.
In the comments section, he says:
"I don't think that I was wronged at all. I'm not even upset, nor do I think I was complaining. Just sharing a story that I thought was funny and ironic, but sometimes I forget this is the Internet and it's serious time, all the time.
I'm glad Apple has a system in place to stop hoarders. I've wanted shiny new gadgets in the past that were in short supply. Apple could be more consistent in catching hoarders though."
Yeah, your desire to have the "user experience" doesn't give you the right to run roughshod over everyone else. Furthermore, your claims of "it's for the users" smacks of the same sort of sensibilities that you get from the folks who do things "for the children".
No, I'm just fucking tired of dealing with the mess they leave outside. After Apple tried to wipe their ass with the First Amendment, I stopped giving them the benefit of the doubt. You think Apple's above using restrictions on developers as leverage to keep them from developing for other platforms? Or using their ban on ad platforms to cripple said platforms, making them unavailable for other platforms?
Despite what The Steve may clame, Apple does not exist within a closed ecosystem, and their actions impact others.
Hey AH, you gonna explain how you think the government should break up monopolies that aren't monopolies?
Or, you know, Apple could fucking stop the practices that lead to these frenzies.
You know, when Sony shipped the PS2, they recieved the brunt of the blame for the reselling that occured due to a inability to keep pace with demand. But when the same thing happens with an Apple product, it's suddently the resellers' fault.
Who knows if they will fail. I would personally argue that in terms of media consumption, Zune puts forward a far more compelling product that iPod does, and that is going to be built right in. They also have XBox live integration, which will give them a bump. Allowing for the system to be running on multiple hardware iterations also allows the possibility of entry priced models, which will be a bigger draw than you might think.
I personally have no interest in picking up a WP7 phone, but there are enough potential reasons why they could actually take over some marketshare, and then, when you've got two large players both locking down software in the same way, things can multiply among the littler guys looking to emulate the big-boys.
I do not think that there is anything wrong with pointing out consumer negative behavior where I see it. At no point have a called the iPhone a bad device. At no point have I said that people shouldn't buy one or want to buy one. All I've done is state that their particular business model is consumer negative. If you don't care that it's consumer negative, then have yourself a ball.
Yeah, if only they overworked and abused the hell out of their third-world suppliers like Microsoft does. That way, maybe these supply shortages would not have happened.
Well, if we want to get in to THAT...
I'm not convinced that the current iPad shortage is real. There were wide reports about Apple having extra iPad stock all over the place at launch, and I think it hurt their image, so they decided to hold stock back now, in order make the device appear more popular.
This is just wild speculation, though, with nothing behind it.
They already employ contractors that drive their employees to suicide. That's not overworked enough for you?
Apple and Microsoft are both just as bad as each other. it is idiotic to pretend that one is "the good guy".
The point I am making is that if one tries hard enough they can find faults in everything Apple (or Microsoft) does.
You know, teenage angst and all.
It's nice to see you beat that strawman senseless. I'm not saying that Apple needs to be broken up - but when they start acting in ways that can allow them to leverage their extant base to harm their competitors, why shouldn't they be monitored, at the very least?
Oh, and Perpetual, if you're really bothered by the idea of ads that take over your device, this Apple patent should really terrify you.
And yet he signed his name to this patent.
No one seemed to notice this, but it was a surprise to me. I hadn't heard of this case before (and I'm usually pretty good about this--I'm one of the few people who remembers the class-action lawsuit against Sony for the PS2).
Sounds like pretty typical "chilling effect" stuff. Effective, I imagine, but typical, I want to say.
Cool.
see, here is where we part ways.
I think that this patent, if I'm reading it correctly (subsidized hardware) could actually do something really exciting for the market, and add a whole new kind of competition.
You haven't actually shown this to harm competitors. Or even if they were, that they're doing so in a negative way. Purposely refusing to allow shitty software on machines you sell isn't some horrible thing. If that's how they want to set up their OS on the machines they're producing then that's how they get to set it up. Meanwhile the market is alive and well and full of dozens of other smart phones that you're claiming do everything an iPhone does and more.
Essentially you're doing your normal schtick of predicting doom at the first sign of a shadow.
I guess I don't see this. The video game console market - a very large market - employs roughly the same dynamics that Apple enforces on their phone. In fact, the only "cellphone company" that doesn't lock down their devices that I know of is Google, and they aren't even a real cellphone company.
The most poignant example is bluetooth. On other phones, users can send photos, ringtones, connect for gaming and chat via bluetooth. Apple gimped all these standard features. There really isn't enough recognition of how fucking absurd that is.
Comparisons to game consoles are inappropriate because a game console only serves one purpose while a smartphone is a pretty significant part of daily life with literally hundreds of different uses. It's essentially a mobile computer.
I personally "let them get away with it" by enabling them as a customer, but that's because they do still have the best mobile computing platform.
BTW how do all the people that complained about iPad lacking multitasking feel about 4.0 multitasking?
they dig out some other objection, because it's not really about the quality or capabilities of the device.
This.
Because I don't care if Pandora is really running in the background or not, so long as the music I opened Pandora to play continues to play when I am not directly using it. Same goes for Skype, etc.
The new line is "well it's not true multitasking," to which I reply "if it looks like it and acts like it, who cares if they are doing a shell trick if it functionally works exactly the same for the applications that need to make use of it"?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Cellphone providers in the US of A are usually abysmal in letting people have full control of their devices. Verizon up until recently was the very worst offender.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Quicktime
amirite?
You can buy Xbox games anywhere. THAT allows market forces to have an effect on prices.
I have SERIOUS objections to the PSP Go for the same reason I have issues with Apple's app market. Were this a PSP Go software thread, I'd be discussing that.