11–20 of 33 posts
Cynics? I'd have thought a cynic would accuse Google of having an ulterior motive other than wanting Internet freedom.
What would be the alternative then? If apple can't field a 4g phone what would they have to do to get one? Relax app store standards? (That doesn't seem very likely) I seriously doubt that they will never have a 4g phone ever and not releasing one doesn't seem to be an option.
Viola, the user has a "choice" of open/crippled or locked/functional modes; they're meeting the letter of the law even if the "open" mode is practically useless.
If this interpretation of the rules correct, then by the same logic all carrier-locked-down Android phones would surely also be affected.
The way I read the rules, it seems like Verizon can't lock down or discriminate against devices that won't harm its network. The device manufacturer (Apple in the iPhone's case) can offer whatever functionality they want on their device.
If the interpretation from the article is used, then no specialized devices like a Skype phone or a wireless medical device could be allowed on the 4G network either, since they are not open to any sort of apps. Obviously, that makes little sense.
So if the carrier CAN prove that it won't damage the network, it can block it? That can't be right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't exactly see how this is great news. While some may enjoy seeing Apple squirm, what about the consumers who prefer the iPhone over any android offerings?
I am all for consumer choice, but if Apple complied with the rule, that would only give consumers more choice when it comes to applications on the iPhone. Imagine people being able to install applications without Apple approving them. Yeah I know, crappy apps, security, blah blah blah. Giving people the choice to install 3rd party applications is a good thing, for consumers and app makers.
Why not let the market decide? If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win?
It seems to me that using laws to force Apple to change their designs to be more like their competitors is an admission that the competition just isn't that good.
The rules were inserted at the behest of Google, which was bidding for the spectrum but who some cynics contended got involved not to win but to ensure that whoever got the spectrum couldn’t hamper its business, which requires a free and robust internet. Cynics? I'd have thought a cynic would accuse Google of having an ulterior motive other than wanting Internet freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am all for consumer choice, but if Apple complied with the rule, that would only give consumers more choice when it comes to applications on the iPhone. Imagine people being able to install applications without Apple approving them. Yeah I know, crappy apps, security, blah blah blah. Giving people the choice to install 3rd party applications is a good thing, for consumers and app makers.
Obviously not everyone agrees that devices that can install software from anywhere would be a good thing. Why not let the market decide? If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win? It seems to me that using laws to force Apple to change their designs to be more like their competitors is an admission that the competition just isn't that good.
If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win?
This is actually the greatest example of capitalism I've ever seen or heard.
In corner A we've got companies that benefit from closed gardens. In corner B that want to keep the Internet free, because they recognize that it's an essential ingredient to their bottom line.
That's how capitalism should work, that's how consumers benefit; and YES, the market will decide. We are used to companies lobbying for their own selfish interest, but in this case we've got companies on both sides, which will make the consumers voices heard.
The only question is, what do you gain from a the closed iPhone environment? If you're an iPhone developer, why do you fear an "open model"? Wouldn't you be happier in that environment?
Myself, both as a consumer and as a developer, I know I would be happier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously not everyone agrees that devices that can install software from anywhere would be a good thing. Why not let the market decide? If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win? It seems to me that using laws to force Apple to change their designs to be more like their competitors is an admission that the competition just isn't that good.
If the 'open' android model is so great then won't they inevitably win? No, because the effects of openness, or lack thereof, are very long term ... just as smoking, or lack of it, just as eating lots of candy or not. Even if "open" is so great, people choose shiny/tasty (i.e. short term gains) over "open" all the time. This is actually the greatest example of capitalism I've ever seen or heard. In corner A we've got…
I don't fear an open model, but it has not been proven to be better for users - windows was open and look where that got us in the 'long term'. Seems like a pretty diseased ecosystem to me.
As a developer I want an environment where everyday users are not afraid of software. Maybe Google can create that too, but maybe not. I think it would be a disaster if we don't get to see both models tested. History hasn't shown that open is better - quite the contrary. I'd like to see the curated model get a chance to play out.
I have a feeling that in a decade's time we'll be looking at which curation model worked best - not whether open or closed was better.