On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 15:01, Mo McRoberts <m...@nevali.net> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 14:29, Scot McSweeney-Roberts
> Yup. it nearly put them out of business. I'm not sure 'open to the > point of financial ruin' is a beneficial strategy for anybody > concerned. > I didn't say killing off the clones was bad for Apple. Without a doubt SJ saved the company, but in doing so Apple have moved further and further away from openness. >> I'd say Apple are less open since SJ's return - the death of the >> clones, the death of the Newton (which was licensed to 3rd parties >> like Siemens), iTunes Fairplay DRM, the iPhone/Pad lock down and Apple >> TV only working with iTunes. What have they done that's open? > > http://opensource.apple.com/ > http://www.macosforge.org/ > http://www.llvm.org/ (well, big chunks) > http://www.cups.org/ > Cups (like most of the OS projects Apple are involved in) existed long before Apple got involved. Apple use open source and even give back to the community, but that doesn't mean Apple's core strategy is in any way about openness. If anything, they actively discourage openness when it gets anywhere near a consumer (like deliberately changing OSX so it won't run on non Apple hardware). > Fairplay? How would the iTunes Store have possibly existed without it? > (and I don't mean in technical terms, where would they have got any > content from?) Fairplay wasn't the only DRM system in town at the time. If the music industry had any foresight at all, they would have required Apple to use DRM that was licensable by non-Apple manufactures and required iTunes to work with something besides iPods. >>> I wouldn't be so sure. I think Apple/Jobs realised that they actually >>> *can't* lock down Macs and still sell them. The vision of utility >>> get-stuff-done computing is incongruous with the expectations many >>> people have of what a computer should let them do. Thus, the solution >>> is to create a new category of computing product which pulls elements >>> from both. This way, the new platform can be as locked down or as open >>> as required with no legacy baggage, while the (rather profitable) more >>> open systems continue to sell to those who need that sort of thing. >> >> What I expect to see is more and more iPhone OS "computers" (like more >> or less permanently docked iPads with 15 or 17 inch screens) and fewer >> and fewer midrange Macs (and no low end Macs at all). > > That makes no sense from a business perspective. Yes it does. Apple get a 30% cut of whatever software goes onto iPxxx. They get nothing from a Mac software sale. Assuming the margins on the hardware are about the same, Apple would be better off transitioning their low to mid end products to a fully controlled model. They could even make it a selling point - easy to find new software, reduced risk of malware, fewer compatibility problems, etc. If anyone can make locked down hardware seem like a great idea, it's Steve Jobs. >> But there are other products that are also well designed and have 100% >> functionality, they're just not as fashionable. I think it has more >> to do with some people wanting to be followers of fashion (and a >> fashion item is something that Apple products have become since SJ's >> return) and then finding that fashionable straight jacket is too >> tight. It's just not rational behaviour. > > "some people" doesn't account for the sales figures. That's because most iPhone owners don't jailbreak. It's the jailbreaking of the iPhone I don't get. If you're technically aware enough to be able to do it (and want to do it), why did you buy a phone that needs that sort of hacking in the first place? I could see maybe when it first came out, but not now. > > Show me a product which does everything my iPod touch does, weighs no > more, has an equally accurate touchscreen, a usable OS that my six > year old is capable of using (actually, my three year old does a > pretty good job of it), doesn't require manual faffing in order to get > media and apps (and actually HAS a good selection of well-written, > well-designed applications) onto it _and_ doesn't have the drawbacks > of iPhone OS. Oh, and costs the same or less. > Take a look at the latest Android phones, like the Droid/Milestone. While Andoid and iPhone have different strengths and weaknesses, they are now comparable. I expect to see Android phones surpass iPhones fairly soon (maybe even at MWC), simply because there as so many companies making Android devices. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
