Great Article from John Gilmore
Arnie Rowland
|
||
|
Jeff Brandt
Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mobile Portland" group.
To post to this group, send email to mobile-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mobile-portland?hl=en.
--
Jeffrey L. Brandt
Communication Software, Inc.
www.comsi.com
www.HIEconnect.net
503.664.0274
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffreyleebrandt
http://twitter.com/jeffbrandt
mshita
wrong place to criticize them :) But I can't think of any other
company that is so against external innovation as Apple. I can be
wrong on this, but I cannot envision this decade going well for Apple.
Their desire to control their customers and developers is doomed to
result in some sort of near-fatal backfiring.
Many people will say that Apple can reinvent themselves to meet the
requirements of the new decade as they have in the past. My prediction
on that: Not with Steve Jobs behind the wheel. There's a big
difference between the 2000s and the 2010s. In the 2000s there were
lots of mobile hardware innovation and as many others Apple did great
in that scene with iPod, iPod touch, iPhone.
Now we're entering an era where mobile hardware is quickly moving into
a secondary position and software services is moving up the priority
list. A single company, not even companies the size of Apple or
Google, can keep up with today's innovations. Success in the upcoming
decade will most likely mean, for a company, finding a business
strategy that embraces open innovation and yet finding a spot for the
company where they can make money.
Sustainable companies might start out developing products, but need to
transition over to "infrastructure philosophy" over-time and let
external people "re-use" their base tech infrastructure to create new
products. I have never seen Apple ever acting on this style of
thinking, hence my less than optimistic predictions for Apple in this
new decade. And for anyone who might say that their app store is an
infrastructure.....closed infrastructure is the same as a product from
a business innovation perspective.
Full disclosure: I'm building a startup building smart content/smart
application layer for the Internet (Our BHG: To deliver THE perfect
app for the right user, at the right time, on the right device). Our
mobile client will never be accepted by Apple (though we did for a
while talk about dumbing down our iPhone/iPod/iPad client to pass
requirements, but as we're building for tomorrow, our bets are that
Apple won't be a major player by the end of the decade).
On Apr 12, 7:36 am, Jeff Brandt <jlb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, As Broadband become more ubiquitous, the silo apps will become mute.
> Browser based cloud apps will become the norm.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Arnie Rowland <Ar...@1568.com> wrote:
>
> > *
> >http://mediactive.com/2010/04/08/complicating-relationships-in-media-...
> > *<http://mediactive.com/2010/04/08/complicating-relationships-in-media-...>
>
> > *Disclaimer*
>
> > Disclaimer - April 11, 2010
>
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> > solely for *mobile-...@googlegroups.com*. If you are not the named
> > addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this email.
> > Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
> > and might not represent those of Westwood Consulting, Inc. Warning: Although
> > Westwood Consulting, Inc has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no
> > viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility
> > for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Mobile Portland" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to mobile-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com<mobile-portland%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
loon tech
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
Jeff Brandt
It is great to see a constructive discussion, that is what I believe this group is about. Mobile not Apple or Android.
Jeff
Elia Freedman
Actually, small companies need to focus and place bets. If you are developing products of substance with legs aimed at large market opportunities, I disagree that products focused on one platform will fail sooner or later. Some of us bet right -- say on Windows in the mid-90s -- and some of us bet wrong -- say on Palm in the late 90s. I actually wrote about that this week on my blog:
http://eliainsider.com/2010/04/12/twitter-apple-and-the-paradox-of-partnering/
Elia
Jeff Brandt
Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mobile Portland" group.
To post to this group, send email to mobile-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mobile-portland?hl=en.
Jeff Brandt
Just my strategy :'),
Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mobile Portland" group.
To post to this group, send email to mobile-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mobile-portland?hl=en.
Elia Freedman
out. When that happens, boy, will we all look silly for having this
conversation :-) (Just teasing.)
Elia
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Elia Freedman
Infinity Softworks
(503) 939-4379
Email: el...@infinitysw.com
Site: www.infinitysw.com
Blog: http://www.eliainsider.com
Twitter: eliajf
Jeff Brandt
Calvin
Unless your app requires a really high level of security, in which case businesses would distribute it through the enterprise apps system, which sidesteps Apple's approval.
I have my issues with the way that Apple is running their App Store, but saying that a company with a market cap of over $200 Billion, and $50 billion in the bank is not going to make it through the decade is...pessimistic.
Calvin
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
Jeff Brandt
BTW, Our company has not stopped developing on the iPhone platform. we are just moving our effort to what is providing us the most money at this time and that is developing a system that is not dependent on the Appstore for our revenue. The dumber the client the less reliant we are on the the client platform. WebApps with a iPhone and Android client is where our effort is focused.
Did I mention that OHSU student portal based on Flash and they have an notice "Are you considering buying a iPad for class".
Jeff
Darrel Plant
I hope your are correct but Bear-sterns, GM, lehman brothers. What
about Microsoft?
Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers had an enormous proportion of their
"value" invested in worthless bonds and financial instruments. GM's
been in financial trouble for decades; they had massive closings of
production plants in the '80s.
Anything's possible in a decade, of course, but I'd expect MS and
Apple to be around in 2020.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Darrel Plant, Moshofsky/Plant Creative Services
Multimedia Design by Brute Force (SM) http://www.moshplant.com
Bedeviled for the iPhone http://tinyurl.com/bedeviled1
phone: 503-490-1388 dpl...@moshplant.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every good idea sooner or later degenerates into hard work."
-- Calvin Trillin
------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Rien
Comparing Apple to GM is like comparing APPLES AND ORANGES. Ha! I just
made that up!
High Five,
Calvin
Darrel Plant
>I just came up with a great joke:
>
>Comparing Apple to GM is like comparing APPLES AND ORANGES. Ha! I just
>made that up!
You mean these guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Micro
Jeremy Logan
At 11:29 AM -0700 4/13/10, Calvin Rien wrote:
I just came up with a great joke:
Comparing Apple to GM is like comparing APPLES AND ORANGES. Ha! I just
made that up!
You mean these guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Micro
Gene Ehrbar
Bah bum bum...
Jeff Brandt
Seen this http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2010/04/apples_fiasco_g.html
Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mobile Portland" group.
To post to this group, send email to mobile-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mobile-portland?hl=en.
Elia Freedman
are wrong. I think history is actually on Apple's side. (And
Microsoft's apparently as they are planning on the same closed store
infrastructure for Win Phone 7.)
At the turn of the 20th century you had to be very wealthy and a
tinkerer to own an automobile. Most layman owned horses and they were
relatively low maintenance (feed a horse and it could pull your family
around for a decade or more) in comparison, and I would bet most
layman said what do I need an automobile for? Starting a car was
silly, right? Get out of the car, go to the front, and crank this
metal poll around. There were no mechanics so you had to fix it
yourself. The first autos catered to the 1% of the world's population
that liked this kind of thing.
Then along came Ford and brought the prices down. More people bought
them, they became easier to use and with more people using them,
mechanics and others who specialized in understanding the internal
workings of an auto came about. While there were some changes for the
next 60 years, none effected the auto like the computer, which
basically made the home mechanic obsolete. It is unusual to see
someone even change their own oil now, let alone fix more complicated
things. But almost everyone drives a car today, or knows how.
As the system became more complicated and the tinkerer was boxed out,
ironically, more people became users because the entire system became
more accessible.
I think the same is happening in computing. Apple isn't making a
smartphone/tablet/entertainment device for you and me. They are making
a smartphone and tablet and entertainment device for the 99% of people
worldwide who don't know an Ethernet cable from a power cord.
We've gone from the days of opening up your computer and installing
your own hard drives to having to take your laptop to a specialist to
get this done. Apple (and Microsoft and others) are just taking the
next step, simplifying the design, ability to add content, and make a
system attractive to the rest. Whether we like it or not, this
evolution is happening.
Look at the top two smartphone/handheld platforms in the US:
BlackBerry and Apple. Both extremely simple at doing what they do best
(RIM: emailing, texting and Apple: content, entertainment). Since the
iPhone and iPod touch introductions in 2007 the two have combined to
sell more than 150 million devices. That's more devices than were
shipped in the 20 years of handhelds and smartphone computing before
it. Also compare that to laptops, the tool de jeur of technologists
everwhere. Nokia, Apple and RIM combined to sell more smartphones than
all laptops sold last year, and smartphones are a tiny percentage of
the world's cell phone usage.
I would argue that their appeal to the rest of world is part of what
has made them strong players. Of the 6 billion people on this planet,
we -- those of us who are technically adept -- make up less than 1%.
They need us to some extent, sure, but catering to the 60 million of
us technologists isn't carrying them forward any more.
Apple, RIM, Nokia, Google and Microsoft, I'm certain, see that the
future is selling to the other 5.94 billion people on the planet.
Elia
Ron Braithwaite
-Ron
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mobile Portland" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mobile-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
Jeff Brandt
Apple is all about cool and marketing, and very good at it. I have a Macbook pro but it is because I got so disenchanted with windows and all their problems.
The Smartphone market and design will change, you can see some of that in OS4. IMHO, the silo OS will go away or be circumvented (I run MS on an APPLE) and a preemptive strike is what jobs is doing with these new regulation.
If you solve a real business need that is a "have to have", user will purchase the phone that it runs on. One of the reasons the clunky PTP phones have sold so well in the past, they filled a business need
Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mobile Portland" group.
To post to this group, send email to mobile-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
--
Jeffrey L. Brandt
Jeff Brandt
Jeffrey L. Brandt
Jeremy Logan
Jason Grigsby
I'd also like to remind people that if the current volume is too much, there are two alternatives:
* You can sign up for digest mode on this list.
* There is an announcements-only list that you can subscribe to at mobileportland.com
Cheers,
Jason
Jeff Brandt
Matthew Gifford
Elia Freedman
of us who write code that will make or break these platforms at the
end of the day, I think. And the technologists are the ones who write
this code.
Apple (and Microsoft and RIM, etc.) have to walk a very fine line
here. And there will be times Apple, as the current example, will
cross it. I don't know nearly enough about Apple's position and plans
to make a judgment as to whether they have this time. So far, outside
of a couple of high profile people, it hasn't changed the application
or developer trajectory for them.
My point is that the future will be derived by the 5.94 billion, not
60 million. Apple, given its history and structure, may be much better
positioned for the multi-billion consumer market than the
multi-million tech market.
Elia
--
Jeff Brandt
Sorry if I offended,
Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mobile Portland" group.
To post to this group, send email to mobile-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mobile-portland?hl=en.
--
Jeffrey L. Brandt
Elia Freedman
I think Jason was referring to the line "I was finding the banter
between geeks who don't get it a little tedious." which was attacking
Mounir and others for their point of view.
Personally, I'm enjoying the banter here and enjoying the Apple
bashing! I find it funny that we bash Apple the way we used to bash
Microsoft. But now Apple's the big bully on the street, and no longer
everyone's favorite underdog :-)
Elia
--
Jason Grigsby
The fact is that I've had to decline a couple of messages to the list (that weren't spam) for the first time based on content.
Things will get heated. People won't agree all the time. That's perfectly fine. And because this is the first time we've had anything resembling a heated discussion, I want to set the tone right now.
I just want people to debate the points, not the people. That's all.
-Jason
Preston Crawford
a friend the other day that resulted in him getting so angry with me
that he actually started making it personal.
For that reason alone I feel compelled to chime in. We're all
professionals here. I would think even between aquaintences and
professionals we could respect each other's perspective and not get
idealogical or religious about it as my friend did.
However I see a little of his perspective in this debate. Namely the
inability to understand or fathom why Apple might provide value even
with a closed system. My argument to him was basically the one made
earlier. That Apple is in the business of creating computing
appliances. And for most of the regular folk and even people like
myself who like to pick and choose our battles, there is value in a
computing appliance. Reliability, ease of use, support. Some of us are
happy to make this trade-off in order to have more time and energy to
focus elsewhere.
I've run Linux for 15 years. It was my sole desktop for about a
decade. Then my wife wanted an iPod, then an iPhone and then I wanted
out of the family sys admin business. Apple had largely made this
possible. I still run Linux, but it's not the main OS. Or my phone. I
use an appliance for that and I don't think that makes me a sucker or
a lesser person or lesser geek.
Preston
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 13, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Matthew Gifford
<mat...@brilliantbits.com> wrote:
> Or, if you're using Gmail, you can mute the conversation.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Jason Grigsby <ja...@cloudfour.com>
> wrote:
>> Argh. Let's argue on the points being offered, not dismiss
>> differing viewpoints.
>>
>> I'd also like to remind people that if the current volume is too
>> much, there are two alternatives:
>>
>> * You can sign up for digest mode on this list.
>> * There is an announcements-only list that you can subscribe to at mobileportland.com
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Ron Braithwaite wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, Elia. I was finding the banter between geeks who don't
>>> get it a little tedious.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Mobile Portland" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to mobile-
kwe...@gmail.com
meetup with panelists on the topic. I think a lot of us could share
stories about both the challenges and benefits of working with Apple.
If there was a local summit of sorts where people discuss/debate face
to face vs. online I think it would be more respectful and interesting
debate. I would personally like to hear stories from developers who
have built for iPhone as well as other mobile platforms and compare
the experiences and opinions about the future of these platforms. If
there was beer and it came to blows I would even pay money, we can
rent some of those big sumo suits and let folks go at it.
Jeff Brandt
No one enjoy a good round of debate as I, but when it start to become personal and not productive I have to step out. Maybe we should form a mobile architects group and restrict entry. FYI, I am also attending OHSU grad program in Medical Informatics.
I wish you all the best of luck
no hard feeling, peace
Arnie Rowland
We have 8 or 9 mobile related sessions, and I think that a conversation
similar to this one would be an excellent addition.
How about a panel discussion about the development trends in the mobile
market. (Actually, you folks could better sort out a topic.)
And a list of 'volunteers'...
Regards,
Arnie Rowland, MVP (SQL Server)
"You cannot do a kindness too soon because you never know how soon it
will be too late."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Mobile Portland" group.
To post to this group, send email to mobile-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mobile-portland?hl=en.
Disclaimer - April 13, 2010
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for mobile-...@googlegroups.com. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and might not represent those of Westwood Consulting, Inc. Warning: Although Westwood Consulting, Inc has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
This disclaimer was added by Policy Patrol: http://www.policypatrol.com/
Jason Grigsby
-Jason
Calvin
That's not trivially easy on the app store, but it's easier than Google's Marketplace, or Nokia's store, or Brew, or trying to get mobile carriers to put your product in their deck.
Calvin
Elia Freedman
Elia
loon tech
Jason Grigsby
-Jason
Ron Braithwaite
> Jeff, I don't think Jason was asking you to not bash Apple. By all means :-)
>
> I think Jason was referring to the line "I was finding the banter
> between geeks who don't get it a little tedious." which was attacking
> Mounir and others for their point of view.
>
> Personally, I'm enjoying the banter here and enjoying the Apple
> bashing! I find it funny that we bash Apple the way we used to bash
> Microsoft. But now Apple's the big bully on the street, and no longer
> everyone's favorite underdog :-)
Well, as the person who posted that phrase in a bit of pique, I should give my reasoning.
To the average iPad and iPhone user - and to most Android users - they are not creating content on their appliances (other than what they might create within Pages or Numbers, etc). They are consumers. Apple offers us, the developers, an outlet where we can make money selling stuff that meets their standards.
The standards aren't aesthetic - look at all the ugly worthless (IMHO) apps in the store.
The standard concerns things that will potentially hurt the Apple brand. If an app requires an Internet connection and there isn't one, what does it do? If the app hangs, the average consumer doesn't blame the app developer, they blame Apple and their product. If the app has content that causes grave offense to Focus On The Family or to Al Qaeda, it will be Apple that takes the heat. So Apple sets policies that protects their profits from misplaced consumer anger.
There is a long history, not just on the Mac, of problems being caused by Flash programs. I've heard of similar problems with Air (haven't experienced any myself). Most people, including myself, think that Flash was appropriate technology 5+ years ago. But times are changing and Flash now is holding us back (again IMHO). I think Air is in that same category. Other frameworks and scripting systems are likely candidates to cause the same problems and that's why (I think) Apple banned the whole category.
I'm one of those using a framework. I was using PhoneGap, but have switched to Titanium Developer. I was, just like everyone else, rather alarmed with the changes to 3.3.1. I have come to the conclusion that PhoneGap and Titanium are probably safe (JavaScript running within a WebKit context, compiled with Apple's own tools) and I'm continuing on, but I face the possibility of having to throw everything out yet again and start back with Objective C. I don't want to do that, but I will if I have to. I have as much right to be freaked out about those changes as anyone, but I've decided not to freak out.
So my complaint about the tedious nature of the dialog wasn't about Apple bashing and it wasn't about complaining about changes to the license, it was about what I felt was a substantial misunderstanding of the nature of the iPhone/iPad platform. If anyone was offended, I apologize.
-Ron
mshita
Lots of replies, but have only a few minutes so I'll respond to your
post now and the rest later.
I don't disagree with you a bit about Apple's ease of use devices. It
is not because of Apple's devices I'm betting against them. It's their
stand against external innovation. Yes, a horse was a lot easier to
operate than a car (I didn't live back then but I buy the argument
*s*). And an iPhone is a lot easier to operate than a Motorola
Backflip (Android) and (my favorite phone) a Nokia N97 (Symbian). I
will never argue against that.
But what iPhone users won't get is the latest and greatest ....and the
crappiest apps out there. iPhone users won't be, in most cases, the
first to try out new innovative software technologies, nor will they
be able to customize their phones as they wish and desire. Why not?
Answer: Because Apple won't let you. (which begs the question, who
really owns the device you used your money to obtain???).
If you're building a startup and/or technology in general focusing on
opportunities in the future, then Apple devices is most likely not a
good bet. In fact a bet on Apple could prove fatal to your startup
(I've seen this a few times). However, if you are building general
apps (games to biz apps) for the US market, then yes, iPhone is a good
choice (of course, as with other platforms, build it and they will
come doesn't work...still need some basic marketing skills).
That is why I am not betting on them. To me it is about the future and
while apps are great biz today, apps on phones (I believe) will lead
the same fate as apps on Facebook.....apps overload syndrome. 1% will
do great and 99% will not. Apps of tomorrow will not look like the
ones today. Tomorrow is about new emerging software and Internet
technologies. I have been lucky enough to interact with quite a few
entrepreneurs and project leaders for larger companies that are
focusing on new technologies and none of them have iPhone, iPod, iPad,
etc as target devices simply because of the restrictions (exception:
some groups use iPhone version of their apps for media purposes...more
likely to get media attention than other devices).
So if new technology groups are not focusing on making their tech
compatible with Apple devices, how will that translate into Apple
stock prices 5 to 10 years from now? What first new technology will
drive developers away from Apple? No one knows....I'm just guessing it
won't be good for Apple and their "I don't like Adobe so you can't use
them" policy.
I'll respond to some more posts later.... :)
Mounir
mshita
I take "geek" as a compliment especially since I had to learn PHP to
get my current startup up and running. Programming is sometimes far
more fun than business strategy and sales :)
While my bet about the future can certainly be 100% wrong, I would
still hope I can express my views freely :)
Mounir
Calvin
So if these cloud-based applications are available on any platform then what phone you carry just becomes a decision like buying a car. This doesn't leave any hardware manufacturer devastated. To keep the car analogy going, you are selling gasoline. Who cares what they are pumping it into?
I'd be willing to wager that any entrepreneurs you're talking to that are making cloud-based mobile products are certainly not excluding iPhone's browser from their offering. That would be like have a gas pump that doesn't fit into 60% of cars on the road.
Calvin
mshita
There's an intermediate step between cloud and native. Apps for mobile
devices have the opportunity to take advantage of "local
intelligence" (think device peripherals). I'm fully convinced that
tomorrow's apps will be cloud based. But cloud based apps are very
limited today. Browser's don't allow much access to local data.
Nokia's WRT platform is a phenomenal solution allowing cloud apps to
access the device as if they are native apps. Android lets you embed a
browser into a native app and give cloud apps access to device
peripherals. That's what I'm getting at....if you're talking about
taking the ultimate bet and build technologies that have a potential
to open up new markets, you really need to get low level access to the
device as well as cloud access. That's where Apple is not just a
hurdle, but a brick wall with their approval requirements.
Mounir
mshita
political talks get very heated, but never crosses over to personal
attacks. At the end of the discussion we're buddies again. That's how
discussions should be. Get your point out, don't do personal attack on
someone just because they don't agree with you, and when it's over, it
is over :)
My arguments here (from my side) is why I won't put my eggs in the
Apple basket for the next decade (not next 12 months). But at the end
of the day I think Apple marketing department is amazing and Steve
Jobs is a fantastic business person. I just strongly disagree that
their strategy has a real future. My belief, which is based on history
of disruptive and revolutionary technologies (so not evolutionary
technologies), is that unless Apple makes a big u-turn in their
business strategy, they're heading to a dead end.
Someone mentioned that Jobs is not an innovator because he is not the
technologist. I strongly disagree. Jobs turned around Apple....not
because he is an engineer or business person, but because he is an
innovator. Innovator is not an engineer. You can create what ever
software or hardware you want. Unless you can wrap it in some sort of
a business model and build a good business strategy, your product will
never be enter the history books as an innovation. Innovation is often
refereed to as products/servicestechnology (etc) with a realistic
business model linked to a bigger vision and executed using a good
business strategy. That's were Jobs does a fantastic work.
Just because I hate Apple's business model doesn't mean I can't see
the skill set of the people behind the company name :)
On Apr 13, 1:28 pm, Preston Crawford <preston.crawf...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/mobile-portland?hl=en
Calvin Rien
mshita
every developer has to get permission to cross to get on the device.
And Apple, the gate keeper, can deny you for any reason (
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-program-license-agreement-all
).
You are missing one crucial point. The 2020 you're describing is going
to be designed and built by mostly startups, not Google, Apple, or
Microsoft. They might own them by then but that is most likely only
because they acquired these small startups. The future doesn't happen,
it gets designed then built!
The fact is, we can't get to 2020 unless we can get to 2011. And Apple
will not let their devices be used for cutting edge software
innovation.
Apple is "software communism" plain and simple. Open innovation
requires democracy. Apple developer can't criticize their relationship
with Apple publically. They are forced to silence....how in the world
will that help create HTML7 with APIs that access your hopes and
dreams? Your hopes and dreams might mean the end of your relationship
with Apple.
I'm sorry, but lets agree to disagree. Innovation and futuristic
technologies belongs in the Android and Symbian camp. When Steve Jobs
wakes up from his dream, it might just be too late for Apple.
Consumers want to the latest and the greatest and one day their iPhone
won't be delivering the latest and the greatest (which is true today,
but Apple's marketing campaign has kept the latest and greatest away
from the public eye.....but that's not going to last forever either).
> > mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com<mobile-portland%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > > >> .
> > > >> For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/mobile-portland?hl=en
> > > >> .
>
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > > Groups "Mobile Portland" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to mobile-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com<mobile-portland%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/mobile-portland?hl=en
> > > > .
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Mobile Portland" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to mobile-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com<mobile-portland%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
Calvin Rien
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
Elia Freedman
comment for all involved here on this topic: the fallicy that the only
way to write software for a device is to put it on the device itself
is frustrating.
There are two ways of writing mobile software today. One is to write
an app that runs on the device. I would argue that writing apps that
run on a mobile device is anything but cutting edge. I haven't heard
about anything truly revolutionary, truly unique and pushing the
boundaries of software written for Android, Windows Mobile, or
BlackBerry either.
The second way is to write mobile web apps. This, I believe, is where
the cutting edge work is happening. And in this world, Apple and
Google are way out in front. Both of them support beautiful,
HTML5-based browsers and give you the ability to run your apps
offline. Furthermore, Apple (as well as Google) is placing zero
restrictions on this delivery mechanism and has continued to
contribute to open web standards.
I fully believe that Apple's issues have more to do with control of
the platform and its future direction and innovation than it has to do
with being vindictive. There is nothing on an iPhone that Apple can't
change or improve -- APIs, JavaScript engine, WebKit -- and know that
those changes will be immediately available to developers.
Finally, I don't know a single company that doesn't want control over
its own future, including all of us. After all, that's what this
discussion is really all about. It's really about each of us feeling
like we have no control in Apple's universe.
Elia
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:34 PM, mshita <mouni...@gmail.com> wrote:
loon tech
change their business strategy every couple of months. Currently, the
have a 3-legged strategy. The ipod and iphone is just one of the legs.
Stop trying to make the future this free place. The market is driven
by money. If you idea doesn't make money then why would they use it?
Google has already found a way to allow Google voice on the iphone.
It’s webkit. That is your entrance into the iphone market. They don't
allow your app because they aren't ready for it. They will, how ever,
follow the market like they have for 30 years. If your future is the
REAL future, then will be at the top. Before you start making jabs at
their business model learn your history. The fact that you are posing
your statements as they are going "all in" on the iphone shows you are
uninformed.
Another thing, Google was a startup, and so was Apple. They ARE the
starts up are looking for. Google was a garage and Apple was a
microbus.
Microsoft was a jail cell in Arizona (actually it was a dorm room but
who's counting)
History is written by those who win.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:34 PM, mshita <mouni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
mshita
Reality is, however, that there are laws against how protective you
can be. I have no doubt that Apple will be around for decades to come.
But I do believe that regulators will step in early this decade as
Apple builds too much market power in the US and placing extreme
restrictions how you can compete against them, If government steps in,
then no one really knows who this new Apple will be nor what they will
look like and for someone who is in the space of future tech, that's a
deadly bet. But yes, you are right, few feel like they have much
control in the Apple universe and each on of us needs to decide if
that's an acceptable risk if Apple products are an interesting target.
At Kimera Systems we've gotten as far as looking for an Apple
developer but before we found one we decided that the odds favor
failure over success so we exited the mindset of supporting Apple
products (except basic functionality via the browser) for now.
@loon tech: I think you're missing the point. Apple has put rules and
restrictions in place to prevent innovation. You can argue that their
intention is not to prevent innovation but to protect themselves. Just
as you can argue that health insurances companies don't raise rates to
make sure you die, but to protect their bottom line. But there's a
couple of things that are really wrong with that:
1. Apple's dev agreement clearly states that no app can compete
against their apps. That's not a free and open market American
capitalism is built on.
2. Yet they approve Opera Mini and analysts believe that starting a
fight with Opera may not be the best fight for Apple as Opera was one
of the initial companies that started and won the fight against
Windows and IE being packaged together.
To me this shows a clear intent from Apple to do whatever is necessary
to prevent government interference (which by the way is under progress
with the Google Voice mess). Make the guys who have the market power
to involve regulators...make them happy. Don't piss them off.
American capitalism is after all based on innovation. That's why the
government stepped in with Microsoft, that's why FCC put in the open
access provision in the spectrum auction, that's why (initially) the
Norwegian government (and then European governments) forced Apple to
sell music not locked to iPods. All of these sales restrictions
prevents other companies from creating new (better or worse) products
and compete in an open market place.
Now, back to "my technical myopism" as you called it. If you re-read
my posts I'm stating that the past decade has been a hardware (and
OS...but I think OS is silicon software and hence a part of hardware
market) success for Apple. Apple has also been successful in service
offerings (music, movies, now eBooks, etc). But Apple has never
released a service model that puts them in an open market allowing
anyone (average Joe or Google) to compete against them.
By the way: History is not written by those who win, but by those who
recognize potential winners. Google Maps, Symbian, Android, Microsoft
Office, et etc where never the innovation of their current companies.
Your statement is one of the biggest myths of the global innovation
space.
Take an example: Microsoft took out $4.2B in loans last year to have
cash available to acquire tech companies with technologies that can
help Microsoft position themselves stronger in the future. Nokia and
Google have same acquisition strategies. As Ballmer said on an
interview; "we are traction neutral" (don't remember his exact
words)...but his point is (as Nokia and Google also have proven in
their acquisitions), "we don't care how few or how many users you
have. If we believe your technology has potential, we want to talk".
History is as factual as reality (that is not at all)....all based on
your point of view.
On Apr 13, 11:02 pm, loon tech <loont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your technical myopism is showing as you assume that Apple doesn't
> change their business strategy every couple of months. Currently, the
> have a 3-legged strategy. The ipod and iphone is just one of the legs.
> Stop trying to make the future this free place. The market is driven
> by money. If you idea doesn't make money then why would they use it?
> Google has already found a way to allow Google voice on the iphone.
> It’s webkit. That is your entrance into the iphone market. They don't
> allow your app because they aren't ready for it. They will, how ever,
> follow the market like they have for 30 years. If your future is the
> REAL future, then will be at the top. Before you start making jabs at
> their business model learn your history. The fact that you are posing
> your statements as they are going "all in" on the iphone shows you are
> uninformed.
>
> Another thing, Google was a startup, and so was Apple. They ARE the
> starts up are looking for. Google was a garage and Apple was a
> microbus.
>
> Microsoft was a jail cell in Arizona (actually it was a dorm room but
> who's counting)
>
> History is written by those who win.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:34 PM, mshita <mounirs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The app store is EVERYTHING for Apple's app strategy. It is the bridge
> > every developer has to get permission to cross to get on the device.
> > And Apple, the gate keeper, can deny you for any reason (
> >http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-program-license...
> ...
>
> read more »
loon tech
true innovator will find a way around them, instead of whining about
it. that is why i said "technical myopism" : the process of confining
ones vision to a set path thus undefined. your revisionist history i
deal of "potential winners" as opposed to REAL winners falls apart at
the nazis. the made fatal mistakes right near the end taking them from
potential winners to losers. that is why nazis are a bad and we don't
speak german. Do you like Newton? What about Leibnitz? they both came
up with calculus but in different directions. who is credited with it?
Newton, because he WON!
it's not that i am missing your point. i see it. i see the holes in
it. the most recent hole: you compared health care to technology.
health care is a money pit that serve not useful end because we all
die. the insurance companies are prying on fear and the government is
now taking over because they are better at scaring people. don't bring
health care into a discussion about freedom. it shows how closed you
are. it like showing up to a funeral wearing a baby blue suit and
hitting on the widow. you might think your cool but no one else does.
innovation "revolution, upheaval, transformation, metamorphosis,
breakthrough; new measures, new methods, modernization, novelty,
newness; creativity, originality, ingenuity, inspiration,
inventiveness;"
"But Apple has never released a service model that puts them in an
open market allowing anyone (average Joe or Google) to compete against
them." you can't provide proof because there is none. because they
live in the open market.
if operating systems were part of the hardware market, we would still
be all using PDP-10 machines.
Apple is more than the iPhone. your confining mind is making me head
ache. cell phones are part of the future, not the whole future.
restrictions cause innovation, not retard it. not that i am a fan of
rules. i am however a fan of the hard road by virtue of success.
Apple does't have control of the market. the market has control of
Apple. They live and die there. Apple can't ward off governmental
interference with iphone voodoo dolls.
as for big companies who started as small companies who now buy little
companies because they have good ideas, i'm not sure the helps your
argument at all.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mobile-portla...@googlegroups.com.
