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."
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Four categories of devices by their app power (Score:2)
Oh wait, I think you forgot one
There are four categories:
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"We've always been at war with Eastasia"
Here's a slate article from 2006:
http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/ [slate.com]
"To take a strong example, would it be a problem if AT&T makes it slower and harder to reach Gmail and quicker and easier to reach Yahoo! mail?"
This is what net neutrality used to mean. There is not a single mention of traffic shaping in the article.
I don't disagree that it's come to mean something else. And my point is that it looks like it's still on the move...
Re: (Score:2)
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: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: (Score:2)
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.
True.
At the same time some people are lucky to have more than one ISP in their area.
If Comcast pulled the same stuff that Apple does with their phone, then I'd be rather upset... Simply because I cannot switch to another broad band competitor because they do not exist.
At least with phones I have about 3 choices... Not much and isn't producing much competitio
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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. :/
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: (Score:2)
I could give a shit about AT&T's poor netowkr since the device will simply connect to the strongest local 3G tower anyway
But if you go over 25% of your usage on "partner" networks, AT&T has the right to cut you off and charge you the early termination fee. A lot of the United States is covered only by "partner" networks, such as Vermont where AT&T cannot operate because regional carriers have already swallowed up all the spectrum. AT&T won't sell plans to people who live in those areas.
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:2)
You can if you're good enough.
http://www.engineswapdepot.com/ [engineswapdepot.com]
http://www.engineswapdepot.com/?p=517 [slashdot.org]">V8 VW Bug
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple starts losing enough customers of the openness of their platform, then it's their decision to make changes or not. That's pretty much how an open market with competition works.
Re: (Score:2)
Do customers have the freedom to go elsewhere if those business limitations bother them? Yes.
Not without paying the $175 early termination fee. And this "freedom to go elsewhere" isn't as ubiquitous as you appear to suggest:
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the support nightmare that can result from an average PC with applications from different vendors, I would say that we might be talking about technical limitations... ie, if Apple feels that it can't SUPPORT the potential nightmare of conflicting apps from 500 different developers.
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:2)
Did I buy the device or didn't I? Then how dare you tell me how I can use it.
Is that their fault, or yours for not learning what you were getting before you got it? Me, I'd just go with "don't buy it in the first place" -- there's nothing I need in the app store. Some things I might want, but certainly not enough to lay down that much cash for a restricted device. If I did cave in and buy it, I sure as hell wouldn't blame anyone for the consequences of my decision except me.
For your *cough* great car example, it's more like buying a car and signing an agreement up front that only
Re: (Score:2)
Your car analogy is wrong, because while you can choose what mechanic you have work on it, you are still limited to which replacement parts fit on your car. You can not just walk into an auto parts store and say "Hand me the closest alternator on the shelf, that's the one *I* want use", and expect that it will work.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you'll have a choice of about a dozen alternators from different manufactors besides the one from the automaker that WILL all work just as well. Its not as if there's only one company making replacement parts.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be defending the GP (he is a tool) but you're analogy also breaks down. The mechanic will be more then happy to sell you whatever alternator you want (money is money after all) but he wont be there to install it in you car, provide any guarantee as to it's suitability for your car or even listen to you when you complain that it doesn't work in your car.
That and alternators are pretty standard pieces of equipment, most alternators will go in most cars.
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: (Score:2)
What? you expect your phone to be completely open??? Shit, had an LG from Verizon the ON THE FUCKING BOX (Verizon's own box with their own logos) indicated the hpone offered a connection kit, bluetooth sync and more. Those were LG's specs for the device, but Verizon DISABLED all those features. If I took a picture with the integrated camera, i could not get it to my PC in any way other that paying verizon a charge per image for the transfer. Sprint was WORSE with a moto i had from them.
Apple has an ope
Re: (Score:2)
Get a fucking clue ass. It's called an MP3, and you can easily import them into iTunes so they'll end up on your iPod... all without conversion. No one is telling you what to do with your device.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a car, you expect to be able to take it to your own mechanic
And choose your own brand of gasoline, oil, tires, tranny fluid, spark plugs, etc. You can even replace the radio with an aftermarket radio.
With an iPod you're not allowed to change your own oil, and you have to buy iOil and iGas.
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.
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: (Score:2)
The App Store is not like a record store in a mall... in case you haven't noticed in real life you have choices.
The app store is like the state-run department store in some communist country, where everything is approved by the loving hand of the state lest you be exposed to anything counter-revolutionary. But don't worry, we have everything you need comrade! Ignore the capitalist scum, demanding freedom.
You talk about a typical capitalist monopoly and get confused by saying that it is somehow like a communist regime. The computer industry is capitalism at its best, with its pros and its cons.
A totalitarian regime would either not let you access the store, or give you everything preloaded, and pushed by the central administration.
The communist (not sovietic, Marx-style communist), version of the apple store would be more like a only GPLv3 wiki-store where you have to pay apps with code or testing.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Apple has not pulled a bait-and-switch.
True.
Everyone is free to know exactly what they are buying before they do so.
True, but only due to your verbosity. Modify that to 'Everyone knows' and it suddenly becomes false. It isn't as if it is necessarily easy to know. There isn't some kind of disclaimer that Apple provides letting everyone know the door won't open from the inside. They simply say 'we have an app for that' and invite everyone inside. The factually correct statement would probably be 'we might have an app for that'.
There's absolutely nothing morally wrong about what Apple has done.
This is probably false, particularly because you used the word 'absolutely'. Do you kn
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that "iHate" and there's an app for that. However, since "iHate" is only available through the AppStore, the user experience is paradoxical...
Re: (Score:2)
You are all full of hate.
What. The. Fuck.
The people who killed Matthew Shepard were full of hate. The KKK is full of hate. Supersloshy just doesn't like that the iPhone allows apps from the Apple app store and nowhere else.
You make it sound like if you don't like the iPhone you're some kind of bigot dreaming of Apple Auschwitz.
Re: (Score:2)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate [reference.com]
Hate:
1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
Strongly disliking the iPhone, perhaps even passionately so, enough to argue for his point... sounds like hate to me. Or are you suggesting the the word hate should only be used to mean exclusively bigotry?
-dZ.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But then they wouldn't be able to demonstrate their senseless hatred.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
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
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Symbian is quite open these days, but its user interface and programming environment are beyond awful.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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:Avoid Taxes (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
while true, i would claim that at its core is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
"Network Neutrality" sucks (Score:2)
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
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.
We want the closed store (Score:2)
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.
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:2)
+1 No sh*t!
I can't mod you up because I already participated in the discussion, but thanks for your comment!
-dZ.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You just described the deregulated Open Access Transmission [wikipedia.org] bulk electric system, which has been in effect since about 1992.
Transmission companies own and maintain the wires, while everyone else purchases transmission service (at various levels of guaranteed flow) for the right to move energy across the system from a point of delivery into the grid to a point of receipt where the energy is removed. The areas of the country that have implemented wholesale deregulation have seen incredible competition; unfor