Posts Tagged Apple

An end to the Apple App Store

The company Apple, lauded and applauded for it’s innovative devices and software has hit some bumps in the road as of late. Continued controversy surrounding it’s methods for approving and (seemingly more often than not) denying apps from showing up in its iTunes Store has brought new decisions to light over the past several weeks. It seems that Apple can (and will) readily deny any app from showing up in the store for any reason. This could be something from not liking the look and feel of the application to rejecting it simply because it competes with an existing Apple-created app. This is the very definition of a company that has become involved in anti-competitive practices.

Yet, while I can’t necessarily comment on the legality of Apple’s operation, I will say this: every time I read an article about yet another app-rejection from the iTunes Store, it reminds me of a communist/fascist 2nd world government. Certainly it doesn’t align with the capitalistic system of business we strive for within the United States.

The Apple App store needs some drastic changes. I’m fine with them taking a cut of each app’s sales. They built a good infrastructure for app distribution and they deserve to profit from their efforts. I also believe that it’s okay for Apple to charge developers a fee for access to the SDK; however, I believe this should be a one-time fee. Not yearly as is the current policy. From there, they need to abolish the entire app-review process entirely (other than perhaps scanning for viruses or truly malicious code) and allow any developer to publish any app to the store, for any price, at any completion level they choose. They say they’re worried about half-baked and bad applications cluttering the store, but honestly this is probably not too much of a concern. Customers will indubitably continue to rate and review apps they purchase and download, so good apps will rise to the top and bad ones will sink to the bottom. This is the way a capitalistic system works! It is the customer satisfaction that makes or breaks the company or product. Not a 3rd party who has no idea how useful or useless a product may be to any given customer.

Take two apps rejected just this week: Google Voice and Riverturn VoiceCentral–the former rejected because it supposedly competes with AT&T’s mobile service and the latter not approved because it allegedly “duplicates existing iPhone functionality.” The funny thing is, four months ago, Apple approved Riverturn’s app along with several updates in the interim only to pull the app from it’s app store this week after rejecting the Google Voice app. Additionally, customers are requesting refunds for purchased copies of VoiceCentral since it’s no longer available. That sort of thing could break the company’s bank especially since RiverTurn would have to foot the entire bill whilst Apple keeps their 30% profit margin. I can see the contentedly smug expressions on their faces already.

Ultimately, developers will leave Apple’s fold in droves if the current conditions and policies continue in effect. They’ll abandon Apple for other more friendly developers. Can anyone say the Palm Pre? Or what about the Android Marketplace?

The consumers and developers will decide the fate of Apple’s App Store. But the way things are going now–it’s just a matter of time…

, ,

No Comments

Apple updates frustrate me

Just a minute ago, Apple Software Update popped up and asked me to update my Safari for Windows software from 4.0.1 to 4.0.2 to resolve some Javascript engine issues and fix a few security issues. A reasonable request since the browser version is pretty new. But what really got me was the fact that the update was a whopping 52MB!! I don’t understand this for several reasons.

First, comparable (read: better) browsers such as Firefox 3.5 and Internet Explorer 8 do not even come close to requiring a 52MB installer. The most recent version of Firefox is 10MB while IE 8 weighs in at a measly 25MB–less than half of Safari’s requirements. I’ve been equally miffed at iTunes and Quicktime which often require similarly sized updates–although I suppose I would expect those apps to carry a little more weight.

So, would someone care to explain the why behind these extravagantly large download sizes?

, ,

1 Comment

Apple iPhone OS 3.0 now available

Users of iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPod Touch 1G, and iPod Touch 2G may now log in to the Apple iTunes store and download the iPhone OS 3.0 upgrade for their device. It is available now for customers in the United States.

Enjoy :)

, ,

No Comments

European Union wants to kill innovation

Someone should fine the European Union for stifling worldwide innovation. No, really–I’m serious. In the decision handed down today to fine global silicon manufacturer Intel (INTC) the sum of $1.45 Billion, the EU essentially is forcing Intel to watch its every move in both national and multinational arenas. Essentially, this will cause Intel to impose internal restrictions (read: bureaucracy and red-tape) on how it competes with other silicon manufacturers, specifically it’s little brother, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). I firmly believe that the EU made the wrong call on this one as they admittedly have no hard evidence that any anti-competitive practices were being done by Intel. In fact, their only basis for the fine is speculation that Intel made secretive verbal agreements with 3rd party companies in order to force them into buying Intel-only chips. This makes absolutely no sense for several reasons.

First, just a few years ago AMD was stealing huge portions of market share from Intel with very new and incredibly powerful multi-core and 64-bit processors. Intel was sticking with it’s Pentium 4 line of processors and was content to simply increase the processor clock speed every 6 months or so, but AMD woke the sleeping giant and threw Intel’s R&D department into a frenzy. Intel quickly began to close the gap with their Pentium D processor line. A few months later, they released the Core Solo and Core Duo processor lineups and quickly followed those with the more efficient Core 2 Duo processors. Intel was back in the game and before AMD knew what hit them, Intel had retaken the market share and then some. Now, Intel’s Core i7 processors are taking AMD and others to the woodshed for a lesson in processor power, performance, and efficiency. Intel’s product is simply years ahead of the competition.

Second, most PC manufacturers (Apple included) are interested in making their customers as happy as possible (okay, really just making the most money possible) by building the highest quality products. Perhaps this is not the case across the board, but generally most of the machines you can pick up off a store shelf are fast and reliable. And just about all of those run on chips made by Intel. Apple Computer, known to use some of the most robust hardware in the business, is not using AMD chips–instead they use Intel processors. If AMD’s lineup were indeed better, don’t you think they’d switch? I certainly do… You just simply cannot fine a company for being good at what they do. It’s retarded. If AMD and others were just as good, then competition would be more intense. This is just simply not the case.

Finally, the evidence put forth isn’t really evidence. It’s hearsay. When was the last time you heard of a court charging someone with murder without any evidence; material, circumstantial, or at least from an ear or eye witness? The verdict from the judge/jury nearly always points to the evidence presented to them by the prosecution. Yet in the instance between the EU and Intel, we see and hear no evidence whatsoever. Intel has asked for it, but the EU cannot produce it. Instead they’ve fined the company on a ‘gut feeling’ or perhaps it’s just a whim. I imagine that companies like AMD have just been whining to the EU for so long that they’ve finally decided to do something about it to quell the complaints. Definitely not a good reason.

I look back to another instance where the EU seemed to have lost it’s mind. They charged Microsoft with violating antitrust laws and forced them to create versions of Windows that did not contain the normally-bundled Windows Media Player. They cited the fact that customers needed to have a choice rather than being forced to use WMP over other players. I just don’t understand this either. What about Apple’s bundling of iTunes and Quicktime with every version of OS X? How is that not identically anti-competitive? Actually, I don’t believe that either companies are guilty of violating antitrust laws. They simply make a product that contains obviously related other products. How would you like to have to go find your own calculator, text editor, Internet browser, file explorer, media player, and so on immediately after booting your computer for the first time? It’s tedious and pointless. In fact, if the OS didn’t include a web browser, you would need to use another computer to obtain one. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to force companies like these to do the bidding of an organization that obviously does not understand technology. It makes me sick.

Find some hard evidence of wrong-doing or back off, EU. I don’t like your constant interference with American companies.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Why the EU will not force MSFT to remove IE from Windows

It seems to be all over the news these days: companies are joining the fray left and right in the European Union’s investigation to determine whether Microsoft’s bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows violates anti-trust laws. Just this week Google became another voice in the suit initially begun by the top execs at Opera, a browser that holds around 2% of the overall market share (no wonder they’re upset!). Mozilla is also part of the suit as an “interested 3rd party.” Ultimately, it seems that the EU is more interested in protecting competitors than protecting true competition. As has been proven by Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome, if you create a better product, people will actually use it!

But here’s the real problem with this case: if Microsoft is forced to remove IE from Windows, then you face numerous problems, first of which is…how do consumers initially gain access to the Internet? No IE = no browser. Buying a computer through an OEM would allow bundling of that company’s preferred browser, which would help in alleviating some of the difficulty there.

A second issue points directly at Apple. If Apple is allowed to bundle Safari with their OS, how can you possibly tell Microsoft that they can’t bundle IE with Windows? This point is further supported by the fact that most Apple OS X users prefer Firefox over Safari and make it one of the first applications they install after buying a new Mac. Clearly bundling Safari with OS X hasn’t hurt Mozilla at all. I imagine this will be further illustrated once Google releases Chrome 2.0 with support for OS X. Not to say that Safari isn’t popular–it is–but it doesn’t discourage most users from using alternate browsers. Alternatively, you actually can completely remove Safari from OS X if you like–I just tried it. But…why would you want to??

Opera is a pretty small fish in a very big ocean–who is most likely just jealous that most people prefer other browsers over theirs. This suit will get more face time in the news during the coming weeks and months, but in the end, expect everyone’s pockets to be just a little lighter. Not much else will change.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments