Towards a Permission-Based Web 230
On his blog over at RedMonk, analyst James Governor looks at the walled garden we seem to be moving into, and possible cracks in the wall. "As we rush to purchase Apple products and services on Cupertino’s monochrome treadmill of shiny shiny, I can’t help thinking the open web community is losing something vital — a commitment to net neutrality and platform openness. If a single company can decide what plays on the network and what does not, in arbitrary fashion, how can that be net neutrality? ... Is the AppStore a neutral network? Should it be? Is Comcast, the company net neutrality proponents love to hate, really the only company we should be wary of? Pipe level neutrality is surely only one layer of a stack. The wider market always chooses proprietary wrappers — every technology wave is co-opted by a master packager. Success in the IT industry has always been about packaging — doing the best job of packaging technologies as they emerge. Twas ever thus." Governor ends his essay with an optimistic look at Android, which he says "potentially fragments The Permission Based Web, and associated data ownership-based business models."
Why is Apple singled out? (Score:4, Insightful)
My gmail account isn't really portable. Sure, I can back it up, but the email is really the least of it. If google decided to lock me out of it tomorrow, I'd be fubared.
Websites provided specialized services is nothing new. The app store isn't a new concept, consoles had it longer.
Miss the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the AppStore a neutral network? Should it be?
No, and no.
It's perfectly fine for the Internet to have walled-off sections like this, provided you can opt to go somewhere else if you want. If you don't like the way Apple's App Store has been going (and I don't much like it myself), don't buy an iPhone. There are alternatives both existing now and coming down the pipe soon.
The problem comes with ISPs want to create their own walled-off sections that their customers can't get out of. Since ISPs are often regional monopolies or duopolies, they have too much power to dictate terms to their users, which is why Net Neutrality activists focus on them.
Re:we care (Score:5, Insightful)
The App Store is a store, not a bazaar. They approve/deny products just as any store would. You don't see people complaining that they can't just open up a booth to sell their own CDs in the local record store. I'm a supporter of net neutrality, but why does everything that uses the internet have to be neutral? I take net neutrality to mean everyone has equal access to the internet, not that developers can sell apps on the App Store without going through the current process of getting approved.
Re:walled gardens (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:we care (Score:2, Insightful)
We on slashdot are pretty much the only ones who care about net neutrality. My dad(*) doesn't have a clue why it's important.
The App Store is the most flagrant example of non-neutral app built on top of the Internet. But if you were to push the argument further, I have restrictions on how many pictures I can upload on Flickr. Is that neutral?
Sure. There's lots of other sites where you can upload as many photos as you'd like. You're not restricted to using Flickr and Flickr alone like you are with the App Store. The App Store is the only "certified" place to download apple applications for iPod Touches/iPhones, while Flickr is one of many different sites that do the same thing.
Flickr's just trying to earn some money; is that wrong? I happen to like Flickr as it is and I'd gladly pay for more space if I needed it; or I could just use Imageshack or Photobucket or any of the other dozens of image hosts out there. With the App Store, you're "locked-in". See the difference?
Re:we care (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, because you were required to buy an iphone/ipod touch. There wasn't a million other choices you could have picked. Nope, it's Apple or nothing.
Re:we care (Score:5, Insightful)
AOL prodigy,compuserve, those are walled gardens. And they failed.
The app store is no different than barnes and noble online. You select items picked outby others and have them shipped.
You must learn to seperate the applications and services from thenetwork itself.
Analysis only works if you understand the concept (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the second time this week I've heard someone who's theoretically part of the tech media discuss "network neutrality" in a way that demonstrates they have no idea what the concept actually means. Earlier this week I was listening to a guy say he was against network neutrality because people who use a higher amount of bandwidth should have to pay more for their internet access than people like him who require less bandwidth.
What's going on here? Why are these people being given any recognition at all? This is Slashdot, ostensibly "News for Nerds" - shouldn't some modicum of filtering be happening? And no, I am not new here...
Re:we care (Score:2, Insightful)
....but... I've never bought an Apple product in my life. Well, my wife has an iPod nano, but she uses MP3s she's ripped from CDs, and she doesn't use the iStore. I've never sought Apple's permission to do anything online. I'm failing to see the problem here.
Re:we care (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely. In real life, I have choices. Which is why I'm using a Blackberry. Apple offered the velvet handcuffs, and I declined. It was real life, and I had choices.
Apple has a monopoly on iPhones like Toyota has a monopoly on the Camry. Apple does not have any more of a monopoly over the SMARTPhone market than Toyota has a monopoly on the 4-door sedan market.
The iPhone comes with a free exclusive lockdown to the App Store, unless you jailbreak it. It's part of the deal. iPhone buyers know this going in, and if they don't they need to educate themselves on what they are buying before they sign for a 2-year contract and plunk down the bucks.
It would be nice if the App Store was a neutral network, but it's not. It's a business, designed specifically to cater to a willing customer base who knew how Cupertino feels about their product - that no one can sully/enhance it with features they didn't intend to be there in the first place.
Does free-market competition not matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
The reality is, we are free to chose with our Dollars which phone we want to buy. Nobody had a gun to my head when i signed a contract on my iPhone.
The reality of it is if i want an open platform, I'll go buy a open phone. At some point developer mindshare might shift towards the Android App Store, but there is no force at work with the app store other than free market control. As it makes financial sense for apple to open up their 'walled garden', they will do so. Until then to legislate what they can or can't sell, or how to control the nature of the content they accept or reject seems like a slippery slope, arguably just as evil as something as broad as the DMCA.
An infringement on a corporations freedom to operate their business is going to be an infringement on my personal freedoms.
We have anti-competitive laws, anti-price fixing laws, all sorts of regulations to promote fair competition and I don't see how this is even an issue.
Google knows that they can't play in Apples sandbox fairly, so what did they do? They are doing exactly what they should be doing and creating a competitive sandbox. They are going to leverage all their corporate offerings to entice the user to play in their sandbox instead. If you think that Google is creating the Android phone to be an open platform to liberate the people from a closed platform like iPhones and the sort, think again. There is a calculation that the mindshare of having people on android will yield more add revenue, and possibly corporate services (hosted apps, etc) than not.
If Android didn't mean $$ for Google, it would be canned faster than a middle-management position at Sun.
The fact that google has an incredible cloud-stack to put behind the Android phones and make it stupid-simple to make it all work together should make Apple VERY VERY nervous.
I expect to see some serious cloud offerings from apple in the near future to counter this juggernaut google, who has the iPhone square in their cross-hairs.
The stakes are -huge- for smart phone market share. Google understands that this is the next stage of their growth to maintain global search and adword marketshare they currently enjoy.
The king is dead, long live the king. Competition.
Re:we care (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish more people would choose to not buy those things.
Precisely. You don't like the lockdown and you wish people chose not to buy it. That's your right.
But.. people DO choose to buy these things, knowing that Apple can be real assholes about controlling what you've bought from them. Not only do they choose them, they get in long lines and pay outrageous amounts of money for it.
But, in the end, they are choosing. Which means there's a free market out there - you can buy an Android, or a Blackberry, or a -- god, there are hundreds of smartphones out there, just pick one.
And most of the other vendors are pretty good about apps. Blackberry has their own (thinly-veiled clone of the Apple) app store, but I can also install software directly from the authors and/or download it and install it from my desktop. I'm not tied to it. And I have yet to download anything on my Blackberry that AT&T has told me I cannot use.
Re:we care (Score:3, Insightful)
I find the car analogy disingenuous at best.
If I buy a Ford, I can't start throwing SAAB suspension parts and Volkswagon exchaust with a Honda engine in it. Doesn't work like that.
You chose to buy the product, and thus you chose to limit yourself to a particular mechanic. You locked yourself in, not Apple. And as long as Apple isn't telling ISPs to stop users from connecting to the Zune store, or eMusic, or Napster, or any other download service.
As far as apps? Tell me I can put T-Mobile software onto a Verizon phone. iPhone is no different than any other provider who sells apps for their devices. They've just done it better than, say, Motorola.
(posted in the wrong nesting, initially)
Re:we care (Score:3, Insightful)
I really, really doubt this is predominantly true even on Slashdot. At least 99% of the general population doesn't have their own apps in any way, shape, or form. Most phones don't have any way to host any sort of app that isn't burned into the ROM.
Besides, if you feel that way about your iPhone, jailbreak it. You can put your own apps on it, you just can't do it the Apple-approved way.
Re:we care (Score:1, Insightful)
"If I buy a Ford, I can't start throwing SAAB suspension parts and Volkswagon exchaust with a Honda engine in it. Doesn't work like that."
Don't be a retard. That's a technical limitation. What we are discussing is Apple's business policy decision to impose limits. Do they have right to impose limits on their customers in order to protect their own business? Yes. Is it retarded? Also yes.
Re:we care (Score:1, Insightful)
The actual complaint with the iTunes store is that Apple tries to prevent you from shopping at any other store to get software for the hardware you own (iPod touch/iPhone specific there really)
That is the neutrality issue in that specific case.
The restrictions of the App Store are not hidden, and are part of the decision about trade offs that is needed to be made about an iPhone / iPod touch.
Car analogy: If a car manufacturer says you're only allowed to go to them for maintenance, you should think about purchasing it if it's going to be a big deal for you. If you purchase the car and want to get maintenance elsewhere you shouldn't bitch about it since you were told ahead of time. If you do get your oil changed elsewhere (i.e., like jail breaking) don't complain when it voids your warranty.
It is your hardware, and you can do whatever you want with it--including jail breaking it to get "unofficial" software on it. But once you break the seal don't moan about not being supported.
You knew the risks going it. If you want 'free as in speech' get a Linux-based device with an open SDK. Apple closed solutions so it's should be a surprise when things are... closed.
Re:we care (Score:1, Insightful)
"What gives Apple the right to enter into contracts which restrict my behavior?"
The fact that this is how contracts fundamentally work, perhaps?
No one made you buy Apple products. The argument ends right there.
"do we really have to live in a society that tolerates that?"
Yes, we do. You are not entitled to an iPhone nor obligated to purchase one. Apple is not obligated to make them available to you on your terms. Welcome to the free market -- it's a fun place once you learn how it actually works.
Re:we care (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong, the App Store is like a big box mall with a giant Wal-Mart and name-brand stores, surrounded by teeny mom-and-pop shops. Sure, everyone can buy at the mom-and-pop shop if they like, but is it really Wal-Mart's fault (or the mall's owners) that people like to shop at Wal-Mart or, say, Abercrombie & Fitch?
Moreover, should Abercrombie & Fitch be forced to sell, say, clown shoes just because some clowns can't find a suitable novelty shoe store in the mall and are too lazy or incompetent to look for one elsewhere?
The point is that nobody is forced to use an iPhone--it is far from the only alternative that is out there. So, some people like it enough to purchase and use it, but wish the vendor operated in a different way? Easy, complain to them with your dollars.
What that's? Nobody in the real world (i.e. outside the tech circles) cares enough to complain and just keeps on using the devices? Well, boo-hoo.
-dZ.
No-one forces you to go Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Net neutrality matters most at the basic transport level.
Because then, if I want to choose Apple's protective
yet limited "walled garden of eden" I can, or I can
choose the wild west, as long as I brought my six gun
and know how to make my own campfire from belly button
lint and a couple of stones.
I think it is good to have both levels of choice and freedom.
I personally give up freedom for the iPhone's superior
usability and app quality control (less cruft to sort through.)
I may find a fart app, but it will be an easy to use fart app.
On cellphones, speed of understanding of and operation of
the app is paramount. I'm happy so far with Apple's design
guidelines, and mostly, with their editorial choices. I have
the freedom to move on if I don't like it.
Re:we care (Score:1, Insightful)
A technical limitation that was purposefully imposed in order to protect the business of each car manufacturer. Sure they could decide to standardize all the parts, and allow people to purchase from any vendor... But then they'd risk losing their customers to the competition.
I don't see the disconnect here. Apple is within its rights to lock down its own devices in order to provide a uniform, quality experience. Same as MS has the ability and right to do.
Preventing people from using other devices is an issue, but once you purchase a device, you purchase it with the understandings of its limitations, arbitrarily imposed or otherwise. It's a consumer decision, not some evil corporation locking of the rest of the world to you.
Re:we care (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple has contracts with ATT and the fellow app makers.
What gives Apple the right to enter into contracts which restrict my behavior? And whatever it is, do we really have to live in a society that tolerates that?
If you bought an iPhone, you did.
The concern with respect to Net Neutrality is that you can't just go use a different Internet. If all of the major backbone providers collude to set pricing for access to their market of users then the consumer has no recourse as building a new backbone is insanely expensive, and arguably couldn't be done again from scratch without the backing of a major government.
On the other hand, you can go buy an Android phone any time you want.
You can choose the restrictive provider or the permissive one. If you choose the restrictive provider and then complain about their being restrictive, then you're either not paying attention or just looking for an argument (that's down the hall on the right).
Re:we care (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong again, but thanks for playing.
If you buy a car, you surely expect such liberty. Nobody is under such delusions when purchasing an iPhone--they know it comes with a few apps, and they know they can go to the AppStore and purchase what's there.
It's funny, really: there was a time (barely a few years ago) when most of the tech press laughed out loud at the iPhone for being nothing more than a mere toy. There was a void in the market and Apple filled it--apparently successfully enough that people enjoy purchasing and using the product in spite of the limitations once derided by the press.
Now the same people are complaining Apple is locking them into it's own proprietary formats and product selections, when it did so from the very beginning--you know, way before they decided that the toy was actually quite nifty, and bought one.
-dZ.
Apple decides who accesses their customers (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple goal of late (at least since Steve Jobs return) is to return to the glory days of IBM and DEC. During the 60 & 70's IBM, DEC and almost all computer makers owned and controlled everything about their product lines. They build and serviced all the hardware and wrote almost all of the software. If you were a ISV or 3rd party you need to go through them/work by their rules to get access to their customers.
Apple is doing the same thing. They want complete control over their customer base. Want to sell an Apple customer software or accessories? You need to sell it through the App Store or include an Apple provided chip in your accessory, and they decide who sells through the App Store and who can make accessories. My only surprise is why they haven't started to lock down their computers and Mac OS.
So to be clear. If you own an Apple product you are an Apple customer first and foremost. And Apple decides who can sell software and hardware to you.
As always their are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.
Re:walled gardens (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyways, with tools like tcp->dns relays, and tools like me walking around, I wonder how long this dirty little secret will work out.
They'll change the DNS server for unauthed computers to only serve the billing page and redirect all A queries to a single IP. You could probably write that app in a few hours.
Re:Lock-In, Not the Network (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you're wrong. I worked for Apple in the 1990s, while the registration was in effect. Code registration was necessary to avoid collisions, which would mess up a desktop by crossing the two apps with their data. Sure, someone could pick their own code, but that was playing dice with the desktop universe. Apple used to deny the registration to some apps the company didn't like.
Central registration of unique codes isn't always authoritarian. But Apple used it to be. Meanwhile, Windows used a much larger namespace, 128 bit GUIDs, for the same purpose, which was better suited to their open app landscape.
Instead of posting inflammatory accusations, Anonymous Coward, why not just disagree, and get proven wrong without looking like a jerk?
Re:Lock-In, Not the Network (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, someone could pick their own code, but that was playing dice with the desktop universe.
The AC is obnoxious but essentially correct. Apple had no way of stopping anybody from releasing their app with an unapproved creator code; it's not at all comparable to their control over iPhone apps.