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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
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?
(*) I'm using my dad as a stereotype instead of my mother because I recently learned that using mothers as examples of clueless users is sexist. So I'm applying some affirmative action
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.
While it is true Apple should be able to choose what to sell and what not to sell on their own store..
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 music side of the store is fine. You can get MP3s anywhere. You can put your MP3s from anywhere on your Apple devices, No issue.
Without jailbreaking (Something Apple hasn't stated is OK to do, and has at least implied it is NOT OK to do) you can't load software of your choosing on your own hardware, only software Apple deems worthy to sell on their store.
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).
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday October 30, @11:37AM (#29925473)
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.
If you buy a phone, you expect to be able to put your own apps on it.
Your analogy breaks down right there. When I moved from my Treo 600 to an iPhone, I didn't expect to be able to move my apps/games with me. Neither if I moved to a blackberry. Sure there will be some great devs who do cross-platform stuff (PopCap: Bookworm), but that's because they take the time and effort to write it in different platforms
The iPhone is NOT a car. You can't die by using a phone, and the phone industry is not nearly as regulated as the auto industry.
In short, I have NO expectation that I should be able to move my apps from one platform to another, willy-nilly. Maybe if everything was copyleft'd and we were all using ports-capable OS's, sure. But I have no expectation of that any time soon.
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.
I'm sorry, "open" is exactly how I would not describe Apple, unless I'm misunderstanding your use of the term. In exactly what way is Apple "open" in your view?
I'm with you on the protecting their customers from crap, scams, etc.
If half of Apple's lockdown is forced by their partner (AT&T) then pray tell why can I tether my Blackberry, why do I have MMS on my Blackberry, and why can I run Google Voice on my Blackberry? AT&T has never said "boo" about ANY of those things.
That's one reason why I really like my Android phone (HTC Hero). There's an App Store, but I also have control over whether to allow apps from other sources. (And I think that the App Store itself is much less controlled.)
Plus, apps can fundamentally change how the device works. You can customize the heck out of this phone. But it's still very slick and has a beautiful UI.
I think Android is going to gain a ton of traction with users soon. It should, anyway. It rocks.
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 Ver
If you buy a phone, you expect to be able to put your own apps on it.
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.
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
Net Neutrality and Vendor Lock-In are not the same thing.
Net Neutrality is talking about access and QoS of Internet Traffic. Vendor lock-in is a stupid practice that has been going on for ages because people don't learn from the past.
I dunno, I buy all of my music from Amazon via MP3 or used CDs. I don't use iTunes, and since I can't even search their store to see what they have without installing the software, I don't mess with it. From what I've heard Amazon seems to usually have better prices anyway - my wife was looking at a song on iTunes for $1.29, whereas I could get it for $.99. We don't have choice?
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 goi
And like any state run enterprise they'll implode under their own weight. Case in point: Apple touts 100,000 apps. When my local fox affiliate feels the need to publish an app to access their site or Nationwide Insurance publishes an app to post a claim for your latest wreck, why have an "app for that" at all? I thought that's what the internet was for. Why wall it off? To me it's just silly...
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.
....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.
Software service providers have all the rights to lock down their applications and pre. My only beef is when they start pressuring ISPs to do the things at their end in order to save themselves time and effort.
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 o
(*) I'm using my dad as a stereotype instead of my mother because I recently learned that using mothers as examples of clueless users is sexist. So I'm
Being ageist [wikipedia.org] instead? Not much of an improvement, if you ask me... but if you ask a broad, she'll say otherwise;-)
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.
It's pretty easy to explain with analogies. "Imagine if Amazon bought UPS and gave itself free shipping, while jacking up the rates for its competitors. We have a choice in shipping providers of course, but we can't use a different internet. So imagine that UPS was our only choice for shipping. Amazon would have an unfair advantage right? Could a free market operate under such co
Consumers aren't oriented to preserving their media freedom.
Voters aren't oriented to media freedom either. They still swallow 'end of capitalism' and rugged individualism B.S. whole when the notion of regulations is mentioned.
So? You get what you want. Shiny, expensive, handcuffs.
On the mobile phone front, Symbian doesn't get any love on./ but it's more open than it ever has been with excellent media freedom. Tons of applications and years ahead of newbies Apple and Google.
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.
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.
I know it's a different type of walled garden, but I have to wonder out loud. So right now you have things like Boingo and such, pay-for wifi access at airports, hotels, coffee shops.. these services need DNS access to be open regardless of payment status.
So on a trip last month, I was a dbag and tried something out. I set up a little relay at home that accepted TCP embedded in DNS, and tunneled everything over it. And it was fast. Fast enough for ssh and web browsing, but not video web browsing. (And
This sounds a bit to me like the people who argue that if Marijuana were legalized and taxed, everyone would just grow their own and not have to pay taxes on it. In both cases, the effort is often too time consuming and difficult for the average person.
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.
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...
Well, I was so foolish to RTFA and I am kinda infuriated now. The article tries to make a valid point about the importance of net neutrality and open source, but in my opinion fails horribly to do so because it mixes it up in a hodgepodge of buzzwords and misunderstood and wrongy applied concepts.
I cannot even start to describe what I feel is wrong with this article, but the last paragraph contains two especially big stinkers:
-First, the ill-fated assumption that the performance and the responsiveness of the iPhone is just an "implementation detail" and that Android phones would have an advantage because they have better specs. As if there never have been cases in IT history where the competitors with the better specs lost out (*cough* iPod killers *cough* Console wars *cough*)
-And even more wrong the assumption that just because Android is an open-source implementation, the web itself would become more open. WTF? Why should it make a difference whether the platform with which I access the web is open, when the web application itself isnt (regardless of the fact that both Android and the iPhone use the same browser engine)? And why should for example Amazon (which is named in the article) be more inclined to open up its data when we use an Android device opposed to an iPhone?
I know that the argument that he tries to make is that openness is very important and that we should strive to not get proprietary insulas in the web as we had in traditional applications. But I think that openness he strives for is not necessarily tied to open source and net neutrality, you need better data portability and better access to the data stored inside those web entities, which is a whole different can of worms right there.
So the big mistake of this article is not promoting open source and net neutrality, which are important. The big mistake is assuming those two will be sufficient in achieving the kind of openness that he wants. They wont, but he fails to see that.
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.
The App Store is not a network, except for the intranet at Apple that it runs on. Intranets are not subject to network neutrality, and the App Store's is totally irrelevant to this. Neither is AT&T's network required to be neutral for traffic that is totally confined to it.
The public Internet, like any "common carrier" network (whether data, or TV, or railroads as originally legislated), must be neutral to prevent unfair competition.
The App Store is fundamentally faulty because iPhones are locked into it. That is also true of all US phones locked into their wireless carrier's network, but that problem in common is the lock-in, not "Network Neutrality".
The App Store faces competition from Android primarily because the Android doesn't lock in to a single, vendor controlled app store. Google's work in recent years to break the phone/network lockin also indicates Android phones will probably get out of that bundling, too, well before iPhones do. The App Store's "vertical monopoly" should be broken by competition, from Android and others.
Indeed, Mac desktop software used to be locked in by Apple, too. Every app needed a 32 bit code ("Creator" code) controlled by Apple to identify it to the desktop, associate it with files, etc, or the app wouldn't work under the OS. Apple required every app to be submitted for registration before releasing the code. Apple was known to block some apps from reaching desktops by withholding the code, for reasons at the sole discretion of Apple. After a while, that ended, because the load of evaluating all the apps was too heavy for Apple to keep paying for, because enough people complained, and because the constrained app market looked worse than the totally unrestrained availability of every kind of app under Windows.
The sooner the iPhone and app store go that way, especially to compete with Google's Android Market, the better. But abusing the definition of "network" to get there, which will dilute efforts to get actual public networks to be properly neutral to content and endpoints (already with the cards stacked against it), will be only counterproductive.
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 nam
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.
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.
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.
prior to the most evil hideous oppressive App Store there was nothing like it...
What about Steam? And all those lame ringtone download systems for phones that wouldn't let you make/use your own?:/
Well none of those that existed before were made by Apple. And this is slashdot, so you won't see anyone admitting they existed let alone are as bad as the app store, for a decade+ before the app store existed...
The troll mods to come will show how against popular opinion those facts are, even if true.
Agreed. His juxtaposition of the mobile and desktop perspectives of net neutrality makes no pragmatic sense. We can still slap anything we want on our desktops and surf anywhere with relatively minimal (if any) meddling from our ISPs.
As a final WTF, he shamelessly shouts out to Android and open source as the answer to society's ills. Guess what people? The average user can't do shit with their phones, Android or otherwise, as long as the telco's are in charge of what goes on them!
we care (Score:3, Funny)
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?
(*) I'm using my dad as a stereotype instead of my mother because I recently learned that using mothers as examples of clueless users is sexist. So I'm applying some affirmative action
--
help build the web community where fans get involved with the bands they love [fairsoftware.net]
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.
Parent
Re:we care (Score:5, Informative)
While it is true Apple should be able to choose what to sell and what not to sell on their own store..
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 music side of the store is fine. You can get MP3s anywhere. You can put your MP3s from anywhere on your Apple devices, No issue.
Without jailbreaking (Something Apple hasn't stated is OK to do, and has at least implied it is NOT OK to do) you can't load software of your choosing on your own hardware, only software Apple deems worthy to sell on their store.
That is the issue.
Parent
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).
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:we care (Score:4, Interesting)
Your analogy breaks down right there. When I moved from my Treo 600 to an iPhone, I didn't expect to be able to move my apps/games with me. Neither if I moved to a blackberry. Sure there will be some great devs who do cross-platform stuff (PopCap: Bookworm), but that's because they take the time and effort to write it in different platforms
The iPhone is NOT a car. You can't die by using a phone, and the phone industry is not nearly as regulated as the auto industry.
In short, I have NO expectation that I should be able to move my apps from one platform to another, willy-nilly. Maybe if everything was copyleft'd and we were all using ports-capable OS's, sure. But I have no expectation of that any time soon.
Parent
Re:we care (Score:4, Interesting)
There's this magical thing called "Java". Perhaps you've heard of it?
Haven't we been through this before? Nobody has taken the cross platform capabilities of Java seriously since "All Your Base" jokes went out of style.
Parent
Re:we care (Score:5, Funny)
Haven't we been through this before? Nobody has taken the cross platform capabilities of Java seriously since "All Your Base" jokes went out of style.
What you say?!?
Oh, sorry. :/
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry, "open" is exactly how I would not describe Apple, unless I'm misunderstanding your use of the term. In exactly what way is Apple "open" in your view?
I'm with you on the protecting their customers from crap, scams, etc.
If half of Apple's lockdown is forced by their partner (AT&T) then pray tell why can I tether my Blackberry, why do I have MMS on my Blackberry, and why can I run Google Voice on my Blackberry? AT&T has never said "boo" about ANY of those things.
As far as "priced cheaper o
Re: (Score:2)
That's one reason why I really like my Android phone (HTC Hero). There's an App Store, but I also have control over whether to allow apps from other sources. (And I think that the App Store itself is much less controlled.)
Plus, apps can fundamentally change how the device works. You can customize the heck out of this phone. But it's still very slick and has a beautiful UI.
I think Android is going to gain a ton of traction with users soon. It should, anyway. It rocks.
Re: (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 Ver
Re: (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: (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
Re:we care (Score:4, Informative)
Net Neutrality and Vendor Lock-In are not the same thing.
Net Neutrality is talking about access and QoS of Internet Traffic. Vendor lock-in is a stupid practice that has been going on for ages because people don't learn from the past.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, I buy all of my music from Amazon via MP3 or used CDs. I don't use iTunes, and since I can't even search their store to see what they have without installing the software, I don't mess with it. From what I've heard Amazon seems to usually have better prices anyway - my wife was looking at a song on iTunes for $1.29, whereas I could get it for $.99. We don't have choice?
Re: (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 goi
Re: (Score:2)
To me it's just silly...
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.
Parent
Re: (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:4, Interesting)
Software service providers have all the rights to lock down their applications and pre. My only beef is when they start pressuring ISPs to do the things at their end in order to save themselves time and effort.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
My dad(*) doesn't have a clue why it's important.
What, so just because he's a man, he must be clueless? That's pretty sexist.
Re: (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 o
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
But then they wouldn't be able to demonstrate their senseless hatred.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup there's nothing wrong with the appstore - it's the iPhone that's crippled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(*) I'm using my dad as a stereotype instead of my mother because I recently learned that using mothers as examples of clueless users is sexist. So I'm
Being ageist [wikipedia.org] instead? Not much of an improvement, if you ask me... but if you ask a broad, she'll say otherwise ;-)
NO YOU (Score:2, Informative)
*You* have restrictions on how many pictures *you* can upload on Flickr. *I* dont, because I pay for the service.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's pretty easy to explain with analogies. "Imagine if Amazon bought UPS and gave itself free shipping, while jacking up the rates for its competitors. We have a choice in shipping providers of course, but we can't use a different internet. So imagine that UPS was our only choice for shipping. Amazon would have an unfair advantage right? Could a free market operate under such co
In The U.S. (Score:2)
Consumers aren't oriented to preserving their media freedom.
Voters aren't oriented to media freedom either. They still swallow 'end of capitalism' and rugged individualism B.S. whole when the notion of regulations is mentioned.
So? You get what you want. Shiny, expensive, handcuffs.
On the mobile phone front, Symbian doesn't get any love on ./ but it's more open than it ever has been with excellent media freedom. Tons of applications and years ahead of newbies Apple and Google.
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.
walled gardens (Score:2)
I know it's a different type of walled garden, but I have to wonder out loud. So right now you have things like Boingo and such, pay-for wifi access at airports, hotels, coffee shops.. these services need DNS access to be open regardless of payment status.
So on a trip last month, I was a dbag and tried something out. I set up a little relay at home that accepted TCP embedded in DNS, and tunneled everything over it. And it was fast. Fast enough for ssh and web browsing, but not video web browsing. (And
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll grow one plant, then it'll be like...
...you mean I have to water this thing, and turn on the light?
That's like... work or something, man. Let's just go to the
smokeshop and buy some.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. When was the last time you met someone growing tobacco in order to avoid taxes?
Re: (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.
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...
Wrong assumption (Score:4, Informative)
I cannot even start to describe what I feel is wrong with this article, but the last paragraph contains two especially big stinkers:
-First, the ill-fated assumption that the performance and the responsiveness of the iPhone is just an "implementation detail" and that Android phones would have an advantage because they have better specs. As if there never have been cases in IT history where the competitors with the better specs lost out (*cough* iPod killers *cough* Console wars *cough*)
-And even more wrong the assumption that just because Android is an open-source implementation, the web itself would become more open. WTF? Why should it make a difference whether the platform with which I access the web is open, when the web application itself isnt (regardless of the fact that both Android and the iPhone use the same browser engine)? And why should for example Amazon (which is named in the article) be more inclined to open up its data when we use an Android device opposed to an iPhone?
I know that the argument that he tries to make is that openness is very important and that we should strive to not get proprietary insulas in the web as we had in traditional applications. But I think that openness he strives for is not necessarily tied to open source and net neutrality, you need better data portability and better access to the data stored inside those web entities, which is a whole different can of worms right there.
So the big mistake of this article is not promoting open source and net neutrality, which are important. The big mistake is assuming those two will be sufficient in achieving the kind of openness that he wants. They wont, but he fails to see that.
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.
Lock-In, Not the Network (Score:5, Informative)
The App Store is not a network, except for the intranet at Apple that it runs on. Intranets are not subject to network neutrality, and the App Store's is totally irrelevant to this. Neither is AT&T's network required to be neutral for traffic that is totally confined to it.
The public Internet, like any "common carrier" network (whether data, or TV, or railroads as originally legislated), must be neutral to prevent unfair competition.
The App Store is fundamentally faulty because iPhones are locked into it. That is also true of all US phones locked into their wireless carrier's network, but that problem in common is the lock-in, not "Network Neutrality".
The App Store faces competition from Android primarily because the Android doesn't lock in to a single, vendor controlled app store. Google's work in recent years to break the phone/network lockin also indicates Android phones will probably get out of that bundling, too, well before iPhones do. The App Store's "vertical monopoly" should be broken by competition, from Android and others.
Indeed, Mac desktop software used to be locked in by Apple, too. Every app needed a 32 bit code ("Creator" code) controlled by Apple to identify it to the desktop, associate it with files, etc, or the app wouldn't work under the OS. Apple required every app to be submitted for registration before releasing the code. Apple was known to block some apps from reaching desktops by withholding the code, for reasons at the sole discretion of Apple. After a while, that ended, because the load of evaluating all the apps was too heavy for Apple to keep paying for, because enough people complained, and because the constrained app market looked worse than the totally unrestrained availability of every kind of app under Windows.
The sooner the iPhone and app store go that way, especially to compete with Google's Android Market, the better. But abusing the definition of "network" to get there, which will dilute efforts to get actual public networks to be properly neutral to content and endpoints (already with the cards stacked against it), will be only counterproductive.
Re: (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 nam
Re: (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.
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.
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: (Score:2)
prior to the most evil hideous oppressive App Store there was nothing like it...
What about Steam? And all those lame ringtone download systems for phones that wouldn't let you make/use your own? :/
Re: (Score:2)
prior to the most evil hideous oppressive App Store there was nothing like it...
What about Steam? And all those lame ringtone download systems for phones that wouldn't let you make/use your own? :/
Well none of those that existed before were made by Apple. And this is slashdot, so you won't see anyone admitting they existed let alone are as bad as the app store, for a decade+ before the app store existed...
The troll mods to come will show how against popular opinion those facts are, even if true.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As a final WTF, he shamelessly shouts out to Android and open source as the answer to society's ills. Guess what people? The average user can't do shit with their phones, Android or otherwise, as long as the telco's are in charge of what goes on them!
Saying that Android
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside, I actually think Android will not ever be a serious competitor for the iPhone.
This is head-to-head with Windows Mobile, and maybe the Blackberry, but not the iPhone.