[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

that's not gonna fly. You, besson, torsoboy and I were on a lengthy tangent discussing Android vs. iOS approaches. You can now claim that you got confused five posts later because you thought this was a Mac board, but you're not gonna judge which tangents and detours are acceptable subject matter. Stop it.

Torsoboy's point was that the app store is a downgrade from what we already have, which is Mac OS. You have been trying to say the only alternative is open-source operating systems like android. And I have been trying every way I can think of to say that Mac OS is not open-source (IOW a counterexample). How do you suggest I do this?

Are you basing this on any kind of reality or just some kind of assumption about the evilness of Apple?

Not evil, just that two heads are better than one, necessity is the mother of invention, and competition keeps them from resting on their laurels.

You know what Apple has control over? The iPad - the iPod touch - the iPhone. That's it. No more.

All I want is the option of an iPad that acts like a Mac. Maybe they should have two versions, the iPad and the MacPad. One runs iOS, the other runs Mac OS. Then we can both be happy (but something tells me you wouldn't be happy with this either)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You know what Apple has control over? The iPad - the iPod touch - the iPhone. That's it. No more.

Forgot to mention, the premise of this thread is the above "being the new norm of all computing." That's why I'm talking about the iPad et al as if they were the new norm of all computing. It's to help me and others to conceptualize what it might be like if the iPad was already being the new norm of all computing. Make sense?

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

All I want is the option of an iPad that acts like a Mac. Maybe they should have two versions, the iPad and the MacPad. One runs iOS, the other runs Mac OS. Then we can both be happy (but something tells me you wouldn't be happy with this either)

Except for the fact that Mac OS is completely not touch-friendly.

But as for my two cents with the main issues o the argument: if Apple opened up iOS so that you could install any app from anywhere, and also had the App Store open as a "safe haven" of apps, much like Google at least at first aimed to do with the Marketplace, what would likely end up happening is that all of the apps the average user would want would be on the app store anyway.

Let's face it, we are not representative of the "average" iPhone user. The apps that Apple allows into the App Store are the apps most consumers want/need. Even me, tech-savvy as I am, have never even thought about jailbreaking for a wider selection of apps. Why? Because most are complete crap. The only apps that would actually be worthwhile outside of the App Store would be ones that offer services like tethering or apps that package code interpreters, or the odd "Apple hates me" app like Google Voice.

In the long run, the vast majority of iPhone users would continue to buy only through the App Store. From my perspective, as a consumer, that seems like a good reason for Apple to allow installations from any source, but for Apple, what's the carrot? In terms of "what's good" for the market, the App Store goes way beyond "good enough" for most iPhone users and that's what matter.s

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

all of the apps the average user would want would be on the app store anyway.

I see what you're saying, but I still have 2 qualms.

For one thing, fringe apps influence the big boys even if the fringe app isn't adopted (example: even if you only ever use Apple mice, you benefit from the pressure that 3rd party mice put on Apple to cave on their 1-button stubbornness). And I'm not just talking about negative pressure, there are definite positives in thinking about "how" instead of "if" once you know a problem has already been solved. Like looking at a functional mock-up instead of hand-waving; it makes the mental pieces fall into place. At least in my experience.

For another thing, tell me if I'm wrong but I don't think you're really thinking about this situation as "the new norm of all computing." The question isn't whether the iphone app store is sufficient for smartphone use, it's whether apple.com/downloads is sufficient for computer use. You don't run a single program on your mac that isn't listed on Apple's website?

[0157988944]

Well, I'd say that a large majority, if not all of my regular use apps, are in fact on apple.com/downloads, but I don't think that's the point. iOS at this point has 100% of its apps available from the App Store. So if that restriction was lifted, I think we can assume that >95% of developers would keep their apps there at least as one option if not the only one. The Mac never had a "this is the only place you can buy apps" phase, and apple.com/downloads is a collection of apps that already existed BEFORE the downloads section. Not the case with iOS.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

The Mac never had a "this is the only place you can buy apps" phase, and apple.com/downloads is a collection of apps that already existed BEFORE the downloads section. Not the case with iOS.

But in order for iOS to consume all computing, we can assume that a large number of existing must-have apps (for Mac/Win) will have to be adapted to it. If that happens, then these apps will also have already existed long before the downloads section. So that distinction is moot.

Edit: Looking at it from the other side, many of the iOS apps also existed long before the app store, like Safari, iTunes, Mail, Addressbook, Calendar, etc, so in that way also the distinction fails to distinguish.

[0157988944]

Come on, iOS apps have nothing to do with this. Apple makes and distributes them. They have the update system on lockdown. We're talking about third party apps.

As for your first point, no third party app on iOS will EVER have existed before the app store, plain and simple. Sure the product may have, but the app can't have. Just because there was a Mac version for 10 years before the iPad even existed has nothing to do with the fact that the iPad version GOES THROUGH THE APP STORE. It's where people are used to buying their apps, and even developers coming to iOS in this hypothetical time of openness would be braindead not to put their apps on the App Store because that is where everyone will go first, and the only place most people will go.

[besson3c]

I'm sure there would be several apps that you wouldn't find in the iTunes store for business. For starters, businesses are far more likely to use custom software or highly specialized clients (say, a particular VPN client), or just lousy software that has stuck around that businesses still need to run (say, Turtle's beloved Lotus Notes).

Those that have written something for the iPhone in most cases would just be web based which can work without an iPhone app, but for all others you also have to answer the question of whether a business is going to *want* to port their thing *if* too little profit is anticipated (either because Apple will be siphoning money off from using the store, too many revisions are needed to be allowed on the store, too few iPhone/iPad users, a business is deeply entrenched with an Apple competitor such as Google, whatever). You know how so much business software has historically been Windows only? Maybe the new norm will be Android only?

[0157988944]

Yes, yes, there will always be exceptions.

But does the iPad need to be successful in business (not that it isn't/won't be) to be the future of mainstream computing? Not at all.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Yes, yes, there will always be exceptions.

But does the iPad need to be successful in business (not that it isn't/won't be) to be the future of mainstream computing? Not at all.

Agreed, although it looks like Apple is trying to also make it successful in business with its Exchange support and all of the other enterprise features. I would argue that there is a certain halo effect, people who won't want one phone/device for business and a separate one for home. Mostly though, to me, I'm just wondering how committed and interested Apple is to really control the enterprise market, because if they are this might warrant additional flexibility being offered, and it will probably cost Apple less to have a unified policy that goes along with their general home consumer business rather than having some special case policies and/or technologies/infrastructure to maintain.

[besson3c]

Perhaps the solution to the business thing is just having some sort of special or hidden specialized/business apps iTunes store category or something. However, even then, what if a business has to run an older version of a client because they are running an older version of the server? How many different versions of things will Apple be willing to offer on their store, and how would they hide all of this clutter from everybody else including regular consumers without making this section of the store a complete secret?

Would Apple perhaps have a custom zip code/IP block specific version of their store available, similar to their education Apple web-based retail store?

I'm sure all of this is solvable, it is just a matter of strategy, simplification, and how this might impact their other business and operating costs. At some point, I'm thinking that continuing on with the current iTunes store thing, particularly cause it's a part of iTunes, might paint them into a corner if they are also going to want to cater towards business to this extent.

[Spheric Harlot]

Businesses can already easily deploy custom apps and versions in-house.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Businesses can already easily deploy custom apps and versions in-house.

Yeah, and that's what I need to learn more about.

For instance, how would the IT guys evaluate some of this software? How is it actually transferred from the vendor to the phone? Is there some special tool for that?

These are not leading questions or Glenn Beckian planting-of-doubt questions, I just don't have the answers to this... Do you know? Where can one learn about this sort of thing outside of Apple's salesy public pages available off their main domain?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

developers ... would be braindead not to put their apps on the App Store

I didn't realize that is what you are talking about. The concern isn't that developers would reject the app store, the concern is that the app store would reject developers. If a program clashes with the Steve's vision of the Mac user experience (or competes with Apple's products... or Pixar's for example), I think it's perfectly fine for Apple to not promote it, but I don't think it's ok for that app to simply not be available in any way. Smells anti-trusty.

Also now you have to pay Apple $100 just to write an app and distribute it freely, or even just to run it for yourself and never distribute it at all. That doesn't seem fair to me.

[besson3c]

It's fairness seems like a no-brainer from the perspective of the customer and possibly legally too when it comes to Google apps, for instance, that Apple blocks just to give their company a leg up.

[0157988944]

Picking individual sentences out of my argument to read isn't a great idea to get the idea of the whole thing. The idea is that developers are going to continue to use the app store, and those that get rejected are really a very few cases that actually matter. Among those are a bunch of apps that clearly break the rules, such as tethering apps, and a couple apps like Google Voice and Briefs, which I don't think tons of consumers are lamenting not being available. So it all supports my idea that while Apple totally COULD open up a second channel for app installation without much hurting the iOS experience, consumers aren't demanding that they do so, and the increased security concerns of doing so are far more important right now.

[Spheric Harlot]

Agreed.

For now.

If market demands change, so will Apple's priorities.