Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Towards a Permission-Based Web 230

Posted by kdawson
from the walls-come-a-tumblin'-down dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.

Towards a Permission-Based Web

Comments Filter:
  • we care (Score:3, Funny)

    by alain94040 (785132) * on Friday October 30, 2009 @12:11PM (#29925069) Homepage

    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)

      by sarahbau (692647) on Friday October 30, 2009 @12:28PM (#29925341)

      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:we care (Score:5, Informative)

        by dissy (172727) on Friday October 30, 2009 @12:47PM (#29925581)

        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.

        • But your argument breaks down here: Had you not bought the iPhone, you wouldn't have to buy from the iTMS. Everybody is bashing apple for the whole app store thing, but let me see if I can explain something.

          Apple has contracts with ATT and the fellow app makers. Remember the Google Voice app rejection? Ever consider that apple had a contract with ATT that prevented them from allowing alternate voice apps to run on the iPhone? Jailbreaking assists in piracy (I'm not saying that if you jailbreak, you pira
          • by BobMcD (601576)

            Apple has contracts with ATT and the fellow app makers. Remember the Google Voice app rejection? Ever consider that apple had a contract with ATT that prevented them from allowing alternate voice apps to run on the iPhone? Jailbreaking assists in piracy (I'm not saying that if you jailbreak, you pirate) Out of respect for their app developers, they should try to fight piracy.

            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?

            • Re:we care (Score:4, Insightful)

              by ajs (35943) <<moc.sja> <ta> <sja>> on Friday October 30, 2009 @01:54PM (#29926439) Homepage Journal

              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 BobMcD (601576)

                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.

                Which sounds to me like a great reason to appreciate Google, and a weak one to defend Apple.

                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).

                This is absolutely true. However, it is also possible to modify the law to where this is no longer true. This is the thrust of the debate in general - whether or not this should be considered.

                In a world where we are authorized to mandate the tint of people's vehicle windows, I'm not convinced that requiring Apple to not lock you out of hardware you bought is out of the realm of discussion.

                • by dclydew (14163)

                  The government mandates the level of tint, because they determined (wisely or stupidly) that tinted windows = more time for the bad guy to get a gun and shoot the cop walking up to give him a speeding ticket. That has nothing to do with apple or its policies.

                  Why would the government have ANY right to demand that Apple change their business model? If Apple were a monopoly... that is if the IPhone held 92.3% of the market and they had draconian laws about who could develop apps... maybe you would get some tra

            • by dclydew (14163)

              Apple entered into a contract with ATT that restricted their behavior. You entered into a contract with Apple that restricted your behavior.

              Why did you do that? Should we have to live in a society that tolerates people signing contracts that they will later bitch about?

          • But your argument breaks down here: Had you not bought the iPhone, you wouldn't have to buy from the iTMS

            Like if I hadn't bought my laptop from Acer, I wouldn't have to buy all my software from the Acer online store. And in fact I don't. Or if I hadn't bought a machine a with a Microsoft OS preloaded (hard to avoid with laptops) then I wouldn't have to buy all my software from MS' online store. Which as it turns out, I also don't have to do.

            So there's nothing particular in Apple's providing either the h

        • by Xtravar (725372)

          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.

          Incorrect. Pay $99 for a developer's license, compile or develop any software you want, and put it on your phone.

        • That is the neutrality issue in that specific case.

          This has fuck all to do with net neutrality. Neutrality is about enforcing bandwidth neutrality for traffic passing through your system - The AppStore is an app and expected to be somewhat biased.

          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.

          Well, like it or not, they haven't been anything but open about that.

      • The App Store is a store, not a bazaar.

        No, no,no,no,no. The App Store is itself just a single part of a greater, more restrictive whole. A central part, but only a component in a greater scheme.

        With the iPod and now the iPhone, Apple have achieved a level of control over their hardware and their users that hitherto has been enjoyed only by video game console manufacturers (an important case study in walled gardens). Apple, Microsoft and Sony sell not only locked down consoles with the ability to run only ce

        • by ajs (35943)

          With the iPod and now the iPhone, Apple have achieved a level of control over their hardware and their users that hitherto has been enjoyed only by video game console manufacturers

          Oh wait, I think you forgot one... what about hand-held calculators? Oh and DVRs. Oh and in-dash nav systems, every non-Android cell phone ever made, digital cameras, all modern cars, planes and other vehicles, HDTVs, and ... well, everything with a CPU that isn't a general-purpose computer or Android phone.

          General purpose computers are far and away the exception to the rule when it comes to control of installed software.

          • Oh wait, I think you forgot one

            There are four categories:

            1. Devices marketed for running only one application. These include handheld calculators, DVRs, satellite navigation devices, entry-level mobile phones, cameras, vehicles, and HDTVs.
            2. Devices marketed for running only applications from developers hand-picked by the device maker. These include any Nintendo or PlayStation system.
            3. Devices marketed for running applications from any developer, subject to a few non-discriminatory conditions. These include iPod Touch, iPhone, and arguably Xbo
      • by Sandbags (964742)

        Dead on right. It;s not about wether or not apple chooses what they carry, its about wether Time Warner throttles downloads from apple while supporting higher bandwidth from their own competing marketplace, and those of partners who pay them for the same privilidge. ...or for Verizon restricting feeds from Hulu that compete with their Fios offerings, or make Vonaage VoIP choppy while there own is crystal clear...

        it's not who is on the internet that needs to be nutral, its the 3rd party folks in the middle

      • by PylonHead (61401)

        Net Neutrality now means anything you want it to.

        The term was originally used to say that ISPs should not restrict their customers by blocking access to applications and content that might compete with applications and content that they or their partners would offer.

        Then it was used to say that ISPs should not use traffic shaping, even if their motive is to better share the bandwidth available to their customers.

        Now apparently it means that you get to tell people what they can and can't do on their individu

      • by jipn4 (1367823)

        The App Store is a store, not a bazaar. They approve/deny products just as any store would.

        Yes, but beyond a certain point and market share, it ceases to be "just like any store".

        I take net neutrality to mean everyone has equal access to the internet,

        Yes, iTunes shouldn't be regulated under net neutrality. But eventually, it might be regulated due to unfair business practices or monopolistic behavior. However, it doesn't have enough market share yet, and it is so overpriced and cumbersome that I doubt it

    • Re:we care (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Canazza (1428553) on Friday October 30, 2009 @12:30PM (#29925375)

      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.

      • Another problem arises when ISPs offer content as well as connectivity. Once ISPs start to offer cloud computing services locally will they offer equal traffic priority to their own services as to more distant services? Why would they bother? It's cheaper for them if you send a GB of data that stops in their server room rather than getting transmitted over a backbone to a remote server. If it costs less per GB to download music from your ISP will they charge the same rate as for a GB of music from iTunes. O

      • by jipn4 (1367823)

        Software service providers have all the rights to lock down their applications and pre

        Really? In what sense do you think they "have that right"? Morally? Constitutionally? Legally?

    • by SomeJoel (1061138)

      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)

      by supersloshy (1273442)

      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

      • With the App Store, you're "locked-in". See the difference?

        No. Because there are many other devices out there that aren't the iPhone. In the same way that there are many other photo services. You have a choice that you make when you purchase your phone. If you choose iPhone, then you also choose and accept these restrictions. It's perfectly within the company's rights to impose them, if you sign the dotted line to accept them.

    • Re:we care (Score:5, Insightful)

      by peragrin (659227) on Friday October 30, 2009 @12:41PM (#29925525)

      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.

      • by Dog-Cow (21281)

        But then they wouldn't be able to demonstrate their senseless hatred.

        • senseless hatred

          Indeed! Mr. Governor should be prosecuted for hate-crime to the full extent of the law! We cannot allow criticism of the oppressed Apple minority! Why, if we start down this slippery slope, pretty soon we'll be lynching iPods in broad daylight and burning MacBooks in ovens! Never again! Never again!

          Seriously, the man's just criticizing a consumer electronics company. "Senseless hatred" goes a bit far, don't you think?

      • by wall0159 (881759)

        Yup there's nothing wrong with the appstore - it's the iPhone that's crippled.

      • by Nerdfest (867930)
        What if I'd like to buy my apps from Borders?
    • (*) 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)

      by Kickasso (210195)

      *You* have restrictions on how many pictures *you* can upload on Flickr. *I* dont, because I pay for the service.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      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

    • by plague3106 (71849)

      (*) 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

      Quite frankly, this over-sensitive horseshit is much more of a problem than whether or not a song appears on iTunes.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      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.

      No more sexist than using fathers as stereotypes of clueless users, especially if you're female. Less radical feminist mysandrists would rather you use the gender-neutral "parent", while the radical feminists don't believe that it's possible for a man to BE a parent.

      Q: How mant feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
      A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY YOU SEXIST PIG!

  • 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.

    • by jipn4 (1367823)

      Symbian is quite open these days, but its user interface and programming environment are beyond awful.

  • by rolfwind (528248) on Friday October 30, 2009 @12:24PM (#29925271)

    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.

    • by AP31R0N (723649)

      i recently had a bit of panic on this subject. i changed my password to something i couldn't quite remember. For about a day i was thinking about who FUXXORED i would be if i couldn't get in. i managed to reset my password the next day. This made me think about what i can do with my GMail accounts to reduce my fuckedness should something like that happen again.

      i'm going to shift from GMail to GMail via Apps for Your Domain. i'll use nicknames and UserName+Website@MyDomain.tld to separate who is sharing

  • Miss the Point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hardburn (141468) <hardburn AT wumpus-cave DOT net> on Friday October 30, 2009 @12:25PM (#29925295)

    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.

  • 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)

      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.
      • by istartedi (132515)

        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.

      • by Khashishi (775369)

        Right. When was the last time you met someone growing tobacco in order to avoid taxes?

        • Wrong Analogy.

          "How soon will we see people brewing their own now that Mass State both increased the sales tax and removed the alcohol exemption?"

          +1 History.
          Prohibition failed because brewing is fast and modular. Smash a (nasty) batch of something together in 5 days and spend an hour cleaning it up.

    • 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.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Friday October 30, 2009 @12:59PM (#29925741)

    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...

    • 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.

      You assume that "network neutrality" is a technical or legal term with a widely shared and unambiguous meaning.

      It isn't. "Network neutrality" is a buzzword and marketdroid speak with a variety of somewhat overlapping meanings - and which meaning is meant depends on the speaker and the audience.

  • Wrong assumption (Score:4, Informative)

    by bomanbot (980297) on Friday October 30, 2009 @01:01PM (#29925769)
    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.
    • I think the author is confusing the "endpoints" with the "pipes" (for lack of a better analogy). The endpoints (websites, stores, blogs, etc.) NEVER have to be neutral, and by their very nature can exclude anyone and everyone (if they so choose.) The pipes ( bandwidth providers) can (and should) be neutral because to get to the endpoint of my choosing, I should not be hampered by one Pipe's desire for me to head to a different endpoint on the internet. It'd be like having a special 4-lane highway for red
  • by Pengo (28814) on Friday October 30, 2009 @01:06PM (#29925827) Journal

    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 concept is great. It should be mandated on anybody who's got any sort of monopoly or choke point over other people's communications.

    The phrase sucks. Almost everybody gets it wrong.

    "Common Carrier" would be a better phrase. People claim that network neutrality means that high bandwidth users couldn't be charged more, but nobody claims I should be able to ship fifty boxes of clothes for the same price as one. People claim that network neutrality means that ISPs couldn't do quality of service, bu

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday October 30, 2009 @01:49PM (#29926369) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by presidenteloco (659168) on Friday October 30, 2009 @01:50PM (#29926383)

    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.

  • by metoc (224422) on Friday October 30, 2009 @02:20PM (#29926829)

    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.

  • Most consumers want the closed store. The store is not just a place where goods are sold, but a vision of what the owners of that store hold to be ideal. To say that you should have the right to trump what Apple decides should or should not be in the store is the same sort of artistic infringement that says you should be able to change the ending of star wars. If you don't like Apple's vision, make your own store, with your vision.

In order to dial out, it is necessary to broaden one's dimension.

Working...