Serving at the Pleasure of the King • Hacker News Board

Re: Serving at the Pleasure of the King

#61

Post by jpxxx » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 6:27 PM UTC

Androsynth wrote: post #34

So Apple pushed out it's browser sync feature at the same time it pushed out the cleanup feature which effectively broke the competition? How Microsoftesque.

That is absurdly limited thinking. Ponder that iCloud was invented to ensure the following scenario: that a typical user could not, in any reasonable scenario, irrevocably lose the user-state associated with their purchased applications.

Apple is gunning hard for a market worth one trillion dollars, not Marco Arment. He is inconsequential collateral damage in Apple's race to a 100% managed computing experience.

Re: Serving at the Pleasure of the King

#62

Post by slowpoke » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 6:30 PM UTC

derleth wrote: post #55

ashishgandhi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they did not do that. But that's not the only way to be responsible (consciously or not) for killing smaller developers. > authority on taste and acceptable content I don't know about that. If I want something that Apple doesn't approve for their store - say Grooveshark, for plausible legal complications in the future - I get the Grooveshark app anyway, from some other store that's legal (hint: jailbreak). Pers…

> I would rather have someone make sure (for free) that the app that I download isn't buggy, or crash-y, or other stuff. Hello, apt-get and yum. Curated software doesn't have to lead to locked-down systems you can only use at the sufferance of the curators. For example, look at the processes behind Linux distros. The people who put Linux distros together have been doing this for nigh on twenty years now, with the big…

First off, excellent post. Honestly, I find it quite baffling that people think (or imply) that you need some commercially backed, locked down system to assure software quality. It's simply not true, it's quite the opposite actually. The open alternatives are infinitely superior.

Furthermore, many packet managers (Arch's pacman, for example) offer the ability to rather easily create and install your own packages and manage them with the same system, allowing you to benefit from the advantages of a packet managing system without having to rely only on the curated repositories.

Re: Serving at the Pleasure of the King

#63

Post by Argorak » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 6:30 PM UTC

adabsurdo wrote: post #46

cstross wrote: post #30

If Microsoft added a feature to Windows that duplicated a popular application's functionality, developers would be screaming bloody murder and rioting in the, er, blogs and web forums Utter rot. This used to happen all the time in the 1980s and 1990s, before the DoJ anti trust lawsuit really got rolling. It was most obvious in office apps (ever wonder where the third-party spelling checkers and grammar checkers went?…

Well, Microsoft never set itself up as the gateway to install third-party software, or as the authority on taste and acceptable content, or on taking a cut on commercial activity taking place on its platform.

Never? I would argue that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft actually made that model popular - on their consoles. They just never managed to push it into the rest of the consumer space.

Re: Serving at the Pleasure of the King

#64

Post by nirvana » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 6:32 PM UTC

It strikes me that this is exactly the position every web developer has with google.

Google can arbitrarily and capriciously exclude them from their index. When google excludes you from the index, there is no appeal, there is no explanation, and, unlike Apple, google will not publish a set of (reliable) rules. (It gives a lot of advice but is inconsistent.)

Also, like Apple, if you are not able to get in the big leagues for distribution, you can distribute your product thru other, less popular channels that are more of a hassle.

Unlike Apple, however, which give you explicit feedback on the feature that was the problem (with screenshots if needed) and always cites chapter and verse from the handbook for the exclusion, google will not tell you why, or give you any way to resolve it.

With Apple, you can resolve the issue and resubmit it. Your app will be on the store in about 7 days. With google, even if you figure out what the problem is, and you resolve it, you have no way of knowing if you'll ever be let back into the index.

Re: Serving at the Pleasure of the King

#65

Post by william42 » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 6:37 PM UTC

kgreg80 wrote: post #32

Vivtek wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True - I was responding to his assertion midway that if Windows had preempted a popular app, people would scream. It's just not true.

Remember when hordes of WinZip enthusiasts flooded messageboards with angry complaints after XP was released with that functionality built in? Neither do I.

It's the developers who flood with angry complaints. And yes, they did. It's called Netscape.

Re: Serving at the Pleasure of the King

#66

Post by 0x12 » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 6:44 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #64

It strikes me that this is exactly the position every web developer has with google. Google can arbitrarily and capriciously exclude them from their index. When google excludes you from the index, there is no appeal, there is no explanation, and, unlike Apple, google will not publish a set of (reliable) rules. (It gives a lot of advice but is inconsistent.) Also, like Apple, if you are not able to get in the big leag…

Conclusion: don't be dependent on google for your traffic (search) or your income (adsense).

Re: Serving at the Pleasure of the King

#67

Post by mcantelon » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 6:45 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #64

It strikes me that this is exactly the position every web developer has with google. Google can arbitrarily and capriciously exclude them from their index. When google excludes you from the index, there is no appeal, there is no explanation, and, unlike Apple, google will not publish a set of (reliable) rules. (It gives a lot of advice but is inconsistent.) Also, like Apple, if you are not able to get in the big leag…

>Also, like Apple, if you are not able to get in the big leagues for distribution, you can distribute your product thru other, less popular channels that are more of a hassle.

Are there any alternative channels that don't require jailbreaking?

Re: Serving at the Pleasure of the King

#68

Post by 0x12 » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 6:45 PM UTC

redthrowaway wrote: post #58

latch wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your parent's point is that the reason Microsoft doesn't do this as much now isn't because they are more benevolent, it's because they were so over the top tyrannical that they've been forced to stop.

Not really. Microsoft really is far less evil under Ballmer than Gates. It's also less effective, less farsighted, and slower, but it is less evil.

I think it is just as evil, just less successful at implementing the evil because Ballmer isn't half as smart as Gates was.

Even evil suffers from poor execution.

Re: Serving at the Pleasure of the King

#69

Post by lacker » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 6:46 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #64

It strikes me that this is exactly the position every web developer has with google. Google can arbitrarily and capriciously exclude them from their index. When google excludes you from the index, there is no appeal, there is no explanation, and, unlike Apple, google will not publish a set of (reliable) rules. (It gives a lot of advice but is inconsistent.) Also, like Apple, if you are not able to get in the big leag…

You don't need Google indexing you to be successful on the web. Just look at Facebook.

Re: Serving at the Pleasure of the King

#70

Post by ashishgandhi » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 6:47 PM UTC

derleth wrote: post #55

ashishgandhi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they did not do that. But that's not the only way to be responsible (consciously or not) for killing smaller developers. > authority on taste and acceptable content I don't know about that. If I want something that Apple doesn't approve for their store - say Grooveshark, for plausible legal complications in the future - I get the Grooveshark app anyway, from some other store that's legal (hint: jailbreak). Pers…

> I would rather have someone make sure (for free) that the app that I download isn't buggy, or crash-y, or other stuff. Hello, apt-get and yum. Curated software doesn't have to lead to locked-down systems you can only use at the sufferance of the curators. For example, look at the processes behind Linux distros. The people who put Linux distros together have been doing this for nigh on twenty years now, with the big…

Lock-down? Open?

If by open you mean extensible, that's what all those APIs are for. If by open you mean open source, that's a different debate all together - an easy argument against it would be Linux. If by open you mean where you can take the battery out and put in SD cards - I have a Nexus One and I've never done those things on it, although I could, but never had to take the battery out (and do what?). And no I don't have an iPhone or any other phone that I use. If by open you mean access to Apple's repo (App Store) against Apple's will, then well, that's not what I can say much about. (Jailbreak. If you say not many people do that and it shrinks your market, probably many people don't feel the need to do it. I don't think they don't know about it because it's been in the news so much.) If by open your mean something else, I would genuinely like to know.