@ack154

Yep. You, me, and all the other people who own Apple products and take most of the surveys on record in consumer satisfaction. Witness the online eco-chamber, where people can be convinced that largely good business practices should be punished because the company does not believe themselves to be a panacea, and has a specific vision that does not please everyone.

PSU. You're an arm chair quarterback. Your spiel sounds good to you, because it represents some fantasy world where all your dreams come true and things just "work" the way they're supposed to.

As one 10+ year Mac user to another, you haven't the slightest clue why you're getting the benefits that you do. You mind enumerating all the failings of the other mobile platforms you'd encourage developers to flock to? How about you talk to the developer of Trism who released a version of Android, only to see such meek sales, because the Android Marketplace has a serious set of problems with its design and infrastructure? Maybe you can ask Microsoft, Blackberry, and Nokia why they've pushed to restructure their AppStore models to mirror Apple's?

The AppStore got released just 1 year ago, and now its had over 1.5 billion downloads. No one else's platform has had 1.5 billion downloads BECAUSE Apple has created a centralized set-up that customers can trust for conducting transactions. If you don't think that's a logical conclusions, then I'm sorry... but you're living in a fantasy world.

Instead of simply saing, "Hey developers... here... all these other platforms combined dwarf Apple's marketshare", how about you set to writing an informed analysis of the financial and trends concerning mobile app purchases? Show them the money. Why? Because the numbers work against you and you know it. With over 50 million credit card on-file customers in Apple's marketplace, nothing else compares.

Instead of bitterly trying to get the mountain to come to you, you might consider that you may be taking the mountain for granite. Heh, heh. I know, bad pun. Seriously. Quit yer whining.

@yyy
"Nearly 100% of personal computer users, whether it's a PC or Mac, are free to install any 3rd party app out-of-the-box so why should iPhone users be restricted?"

Your name is appropriate.

That said, Apple sells BOTH the operating system AND the hardware for its devices, EXCEPT they do NOT sell the cellular service on which their phone works. That service has restrictions on how you can use it. On WiFi, there are much fewer restrictions. This accounts for a percentage of their AppStore rejections.

Apple has created a centralized means of getting new applications on the device. They could have an "open" marketplace where people can obtain applications anywhere and install almost anything... but that marketplace model has not worked well AT ALL. There is rampant piracy on Windows Mobile, and very little financial incentive for developers to invest development dollars, considering the barriers of getting customers to add credit card info, and other billing related info on a mobile device. Also "backing up" purchases and transferring media has always been a huge challenge for normal people. They've solved all of this... but not without the trade-off.

The trade-off means that Apple is liable for the purchases you make, because you've given them the exclusive right to sell the software for you to their customers. They've added "ratings" (this was an earlier barrier in parental control), "promo codes", and they've added in-app purchases (which further helped developers control their sales model and make Apple's format less painful). All that boils down to Apple needing to "vet" the apps they sell. There's no going back. They can't "try" another model later. It was all or nothing, and they chose this one.

I think its something pretty successful and worth emulating. There IS A REASON why its so successful. There IS A REASON why others are not. If there isn't... then one of the other platforms should take the lead by simply doing it "right".

Whenever a marketplace becomes as successful as Apple's there becomes a lot of elbowing for advantage. Apple didn't just "luck" into this. They designed it this way, and its working.

That's Y.

The trick is this. As it stands, each programmer is responsible for the app they submit to the AppStore. If it turns out to be malicious (for instance, it grabs all your contacts and uploads them to a remote server... or maybe it initiates long-distance calls when you're not looking), and Apple moves to shut it down... they NEED to address the responsible party... not a developer that says, "Hey, I didn't know they'd be able to do this.". Suddenly, there is a sub-ecosystem of security problems, and if Apple shuts down the entire ecosystem upon discovering a wide systemic problem with it, ALL of those users/sub-games become affected (not just the original developer).

Imagine if the C64 emulator had an easy way for people to add basic code. Through Basic, you access the machine language system. Through that, you access what the C64 app has exposed of the Apple SDK. You find an exploit, and suddenly you can start acting maliciously, and Apple has no choice but to assume the entire environment is malware... or micromanage the problems.

It's awful, and doesn't represent the "safety" Apple would like to ascribe to its iPhone OS environment. Hey, and I wouldn't mind circumventing Apple and installing Strip Poker! I can see the headline now... C64 emulator allows the first PORN sold through the AppStore. The issue of "control" isn't as fascist as people would like to think. Apple created the most popular mobile AppStore on the planet, and people still busy themselves pontificating on why Apple got it "wrong". Meanwhile, ANYONE else could go ahead and "one-up" Apple. Microsoft? Palm? RIM? Nokia? Android? Anyone? --Cause, it sounds like Apple solved a tricky problem that's not as simple as folks would think.

I think Google Android's come the closest to "openness", yet they've had to ban apps from the marketplace too. Y'know, it never really ends. I knew the moment I heard people could drop into the interpreter, Apple would pull it. In the end, I'm not sure I see the value in not appreciating Apple's priorities.

People giving anecdotal accounts of their coverage need to realize that everyone will continue to have different experiences. My wife just switched from Sprint, and happily receives better coverage on AT&T here in Boston (one reason being her job boosts the performance of their preferred carrier which is now AT&T). As Palm puts WebOS in more carriers and Apple weighs the same move for next year, I think things will become harder and harder to compare. It's pretty clear Apple has gotten its costs down so that it really doesn't NEED much subsidy, whereas Palm can't even get competitive prices WITH a subsidy. I think by Fall 2010, we'll have to admit to Apple's clear lead in establishing their platform. If they opened the gate on 3rd party multitasking (even just a crack, as we've heard they might), we'll experience a very lopsided competition.

I'd love to buy a Palm Pre if I could use it at the same time as my iPhone and really evaluate which one is best in normal operation. If I had to make a choice between one or the other, I'd have to stick with iPhone (as most buyers have agreed). Boneheaded statements like "multitasking > 65 k apps" should also note that Pre benefits less from jailbreaking than iPhone does (as the multitasking exists, its just not allowed for non-Apple applications, unless you're jailbroken).

Palm started off the Pre by stating they felt entitled to charge more because their product "does more" than the iPhone did at the time. With Apple's widely anticipated June '09 announcement, that became embarrassingly untrue (with the $99 iPhone 3G their reference point was now hundreds less). $150 would make it more interesting, but being a mail-in rebate is still crappy for customers to wade through.

Already the pricing problem between the iPod Touch and the Palm TX/Palm OS PDA's is ridiculous. $220 /w WiFi/Bluetooth and 8GB vs what? $350 /w WiFi/Bluetooth and 128MB? Bottomline is, Palm needs to figure out how to compete much better than its currently doing. It's simply not working.

@Patrick
You siad: "--- Just a wild hunch, but he probably meant MobileMe."

In the case in which it was used, there IS not "proprietary app" needed to "access your phone if its stolen". Once your phone is stolen, you only need a web browser. The original sentence being referred to was:

"They can also be used via SMS or email, so no proprietary apps are needed to access your phone if its ever lost or stolen."

If your phone is stolen, its more irksome to be FORCED to find another phone, than it is to pull up a standard web browser on any computer. Even bringing up the idea of "proprietary app" is questionable, because the fact that Find My iPhone is simply built into the operating system, means that you can flip to the Settings... and flip a switch to activate it. No CAB files, installation, or headaches needed. You don't even need go uninstall anything to be rid of it.

While Find My iPhone needs to be activated to use the "location service", the iPhone needs only to have a MobileMe account added for it to be messaged, make an alert noise, or remote wipe. So, theives can't exactly hide from this reality, which should be comforting to users of Apple's service if not users of the other service.

The only downside I see, is that Apple's service may be easier to deactivate, if the thief knows what to look for. If they delete the Mobile Me account on the device, I'm not sure if that effectively removes the device from control. Also, disabling "Push" services might have the same result. Worth investigating.

~ CB

My wife has used Sprint, and she's personally attested to horrible customer service. Not simply for one instance of how somebody might interact, but for how she has. She CALLED them, and on issues of billing... they've been awful. Like, having a plan that has a certain amount of text messages included, and being charged much sooner, or issues with minutes, etc. Personally, I was with Sprint when Nextel switched over. Nextel's website was always a pain in the ass, often telling me that I didn't have permission to view my own billing statement, before changing its mind after clicking around in frustration. Their consumer report ratings are in the TOILET. I'm sorry, they simply ARE, and they introduced their "Simply Everything" plan simply to stem their precipitous rate of attrition. This has all been reported on before, so... anyone providing a "positive" note on Sprint should be saying "lately they've been better" or "I know they've got a poor reputation on customer service, but..." Trying to start with, "Have you even used them", is woefully the wrong foot to launch from. Personally, I've never used T-Mobile, but their customer service reputation proceeds them by leaps and bounds.

Megaparticle, John,

Quix is completely correct.

You two are misguided for reasons that have little to do with the facts.

FACT: Apple originally wanted to sell DRM-free music, but only added DRM because the labels would not sell without it (and Apple needed a store). Google "steve jobs rolling stone". QUOTE from JOBS: "When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content. --No one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it."

FACT: Microsoft "opened" up its "ecosystem", and it only proliferated DRM everywhere, and caused the problems Apple foresaw, to the point where Microsoft is now "killing off" support for people that need to reauthorize music they've purchased in the future (if they change machines, etc). Check out the recent stories on the MSN music servers.

FACT: Apple would GLADLY sell music without DRM, because they use their store as a loss-leader (they are now selling digital movies at a $1 per sale loss). Apple knows that they have other "controls" on retaining customers, like their brand, ease-of-use solutions, and cultural strangle-hold. Not to mention their patents and arrangements like the Made-for-iPod program. If it makes it easier on consumers to use their products (and they sell more hardware through that reason) Apple is for it.

FACT: Apple TRIED to "force" the issue. Don't you remember? They made their huge announcement with EMI and offered it to all of their other partners. Universal snubbed them, and everyone else began to realize that they could use this as a lever. --Only, Apple still wins. If all the other stores become iPod compatible, and still require people to load their iPods through some joint solution with iTunes... Apple wins. Apple would not have created iTunes if ease-to-use solutions had already existed. They felt they could do it better.

FACT: Apple would even make FREE non-DRM music and content available through iTunes if they could... oh, hang on a minute... they already DO! They're called podcasts, and you can move them wherever you like. "Foot-traffic" is king, and creating barriers discourages consumer usage and the entire "ease of use" experience.

The music industry needs to sell DRM-Free music EVERYWHERE. People will continue to buy from iTunes regardless, and they're only creating more and more buyers that are "locked in" to DRM. Apple has left the door open for more new "iTunes Plus" partners to see the light. They only need to walk into it. It's moronic.

You know... I suspect people do not "get it", as to WHY someone would want to hack the Kindle. Let's put it this way, I'll slide the knife in nice and slow.

#1. Kindle has free wireless Internet.
#2. A BETA web browser allows browsing the web.
#3. HACKED = PROXY SERVER

All three of those points lead to the fact that using the Kindle, you CAN actually access the real Internet... and at 3G speeds. If you wanted, you could hack the Kindle into a high-brow, thin, wireless modem for your laptop or ultra-portable with NO MONTHLY FEES.

Who cares about runing Doom on it, or putting in some feature that it was never meant to have. Hello... FREE INTERNET calling!