# Apple Killing Internet ?



## Rob77 (Sep 24, 2007)

With so many Apple Fan Boys (yes you know who you are ), on this forum....the following should bring about some spirited discussion....

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1937098/apple-killing-internet


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

The disease, choking; The cure: Droid.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I'm not a fan of some of the reasons Apple denies an app, but I do think there are much bigger threats to the open Internet. Comcast likely is a bigger threat than Apple for example.

Is Google a threat to the open Internet for taking out H.264 support in Chrome? I know it's not open source, but it certainly is a major video codec.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Comparing the app store model to net neutrality is like comparing a private health insurance provider to government run health care. It doesn't compute. The app store is run by a corporation and is as open as the millions of people who "shop" there want it to be, else they'd "shop" elsewhere. Further, the developers of the apps aren't being held at their computers with handcuffs, as the article purports. It's a free country and the company, developers and customers can and do buy and sell what they want. 

I guess I don't understand the premise of the article. Or, better put, the author of the article doesn't understand the difference between the government and corporations.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

What is the difference between Apple's App Store Model... and say any B&M Store that chooses to carry one product over another?

I don't think Apple's store model has ANYTHING to do with the openness of the internet.

While at time I scratch my head on why Apple denies some apps and lets some other through...


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Can Apple app developers sell apps independent of the app store?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BubblePuppy said:


> Can Apple app developers sell apps independent of the app store?


Only to Jailbroken devices, but then again... most jailbroken phones can then install them for free and thus get around paying anyone.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Only to Jailbroken devices, but then again... most jailbroken phones can then install them for free and thus get around paying anyone.


I wonder how common that really is. I'm generally jailbroken, but have always paid for any apps on the app store without a thought. Those 99 cent apps and games are my downfall. Though admittedly there are quite a few games and such that I wouldn't have downloaded if they weren't part of the free app a day thing.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I think that's just plain silliness. Sorry.


----------



## Mikemok1981 (Jul 9, 2009)

I think its possible that the author is confused and thinks that the entirety of the internet is the apple app store. It's really the only way this article makes any sense.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mikemok1981 said:


> I think its possible that the author is confused and thinks that the entirety of the internet is the apple app store. It's really the only way this article makes any sense.


Yes; apples and orangutans. I can't get too spirited over such an off-base premise.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

No, what he's saying is that Apple has taken over a HUGE chunk of the "pie" of Internet interface devices, and the vast majority of those folks can only get Apps via the App Store, because only authorized apps will run on (non-jailbroken) devices.

While I don't think the situation is as dire as he states YET, he isn't the only one concerned.

Personally, while I certainly respect the overall quality and "user experience" that Apple provides, I refuse to buy or recommend any Apple products, simply because I won't be told what I can and can't do with my device.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

And that is why there are other devices. Some prefer the walled garden, some prefer the wild west.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

BattleZone said:


> No, what he's saying is that Apple has taken over a HUGE chunk of the "pie" of Internet interface devices, and the vast majority of those folks can only get Apps via the App Store, because only authorized apps will run on (non-jailbroken) devices.
> 
> While I don't think the situation is as dire as he states YET, he isn't the only one concerned.
> 
> Personally, while I certainly respect the overall quality and "user experience" that Apple provides, I refuse to buy or recommend any Apple products, simply because I won't be told what I can and can't do with my device.


Take the red pill and follow the white rabbit, you know you want to! :lol:

In seriousness though, I used to feel the same way as you until I started using Apple products. The old cliche about Apple products recited by the fanboys is "it just works" and I have to say it's true. I used to geek out about my computer and smartphone and loved playing with the Blackberry apps back in the day and changing skins, etc etc, but these days, for me, it's more about making is easy, quick and done. I just don't want to fool with it any more. I know that's just me, but I have a feeling more and more people outside of this little forum (that happens to have a higher level of tech overachievers than the rest of the world) are moving in that direction.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

True. And I don't think he's suggesting that Apple be forced to change, but rather that folks should be educated, so that they fully understand the choice they are making. I'm perfectly okay with people doing stupid things (provided they don't put others in danger doing it) if they are fully informed of the consequences.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

"BattleZone" said:


> True. And I don't think he's suggesting that Apple be forced to change, but rather that folks should be educated, so that they fully understand the choice they are making. I'm perfectly okay with people doing stupid things (provided they don't put others in danger doing it) if they are fully informed of the consequences.


Caveat emptor, I say.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Apples are good for sauce and pies, not much else.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

I never bought an Apple product until last October, when I picked up an iPod Touch 4th generation after seeing what my grandson could do with an older iPod Touch.

Very nice. And I can borrow ebooks from my local library and read them on the iPod. The screen is small and I have to turn pages often but it works well. I need a WiFi connection to download the ebook, but after that I can read it wherever I want.


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

tcusta00 said:


> Take the red pill and follow the white rabbit, you know you want to! :lol:
> 
> In seriousness though, I used to feel the same way as you until I started using Apple products. The old cliche about Apple products recited by the fanboys is "it just works" and I have to say it's true. I used to geek out about my computer and smartphone and loved playing with the Blackberry apps back in the day and changing skins, etc etc, but these days, for me, it's more about making is easy, quick and done. I just don't want to fool with it any more. I know that's just me, but I have a feeling more and more people outside of this little forum (that happens to have a higher level of tech overachievers than the rest of the world) are moving in that direction.


Oh, good -- I thought it was just because I was getting old :-0. I used to be a huge geek. I build my own pc's, have what I can of the latest electronics, always want the cool stuff, but I think technology is getting ahead of me & I no longer want to mess with it like I used to. That's partly why I haven't yet made the change to a Droid phone -- I *like* that the iPhone is so simple. However, I do admit to sometimes being a little annoyed with how tightly locked down it is.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

BubblePuppy said:


> Can Apple app developers sell apps independent of the app store?


Yes and no... depending on the question.

The iTunes app store is the only way to get apps for your iPod, iPhone, and iPad (not counting jailbreaking).

Apple just launched an App Store for the Mac desktop/notebooks... but you can still sell apps for their computers outside of that store environment.

But, in the case of the mobile devices... I am not sure Apple even has to give anyone else the right to develop for their device if they don't want to. It's nice and it's cool and it helps sell their phones/devices... but they could very well just hire more programmers and develop stuff in-house instead.

Some have a skewed sense of "rights"... and companies don't really have to give you the ability to customize your devices if they don't want to... Ultimately, as some have already noted, the consumers will push things in the right direction.

People wanted more apps on their smartphones... and we have things like iPhone and Android and Windows Phones... and if people want another option besides the App Store, then the public will speak and sales on the App Store will plummet.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

HDJulie said:


> Oh, good -- I thought it was just because I was getting old :-0. I used to be a huge geek. I build my own pc's, have what I can of the latest electronics, always want the cool stuff, but I think technology is getting ahead of me & I no longer want to mess with it like I used to. That's partly why I haven't yet made the change to a Droid phone -- I *like* that the iPhone is so simple. However, I do admit to sometimes being a little annoyed with how tightly locked down it is.


Age may have something to do with it. I personally attribute it to time (lack thereof?) and more important things to do. I love messing with new toys and gadgets but only to a certain point.


----------



## Mikemok1981 (Jul 9, 2009)

BattleZone said:


> No, what he's saying is that Apple has taken over a HUGE chunk of the "pie" of Internet interface devices, and the vast majority of those folks can only get Apps via the App Store, because only authorized apps will run on (non-jailbroken) devices.
> 
> While I don't think the situation is as dire as he states YET, he isn't the only one concerned.
> 
> Personally, while I certainly respect the overall quality and "user experience" that Apple provides, I refuse to buy or recommend any Apple products, simply because I won't be told what I can and can't do with my device.


So where does the openess of the internet come in? Specifically how does denying apps from store affect the openess of the internet? Angry Birds doesnt stop me from going to any site, or charge a premium fee for me accessing youtube or google. I may be missing the point, but the just because the App Store is on the internet doesnt mean it does the surfing for you or affect how you access any other portion of the internet.

I dont do Apple products either. I dislike the user experience. However I also think that article is out and out sensationalism and trying to stir up attention in the wake of the Verizon announcement.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Wow, the article is wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind. Let's start with the term "internet." That's those pipes. They're fine, somewhat over-full, at times, but fine. Net neutrality is just an issue related to who controls the valves and how they do so, an argument that will go on, and on, and on.

The real change, and the frustration being experienced by some, is about the World Wide Web (you, know, the www.something stuff) using the general purpose browser vs. using the internet through single purpose application software (the now ubiquitous term "apps").

The folks at _Wired_ magazine last year covered the core of the subject pretty thoroughly when they declared the web is dying and the internet is more alive than ever. According to them, virtually all of the future _*growth*_ in the "use of" the internet will be done through apps, particularly apps that stream video content.

This isn't Apple's "fault" and as much as Steve Jobs would like to trademark/copyright the term "App Store" I agree with Microsoft that the term "app" is like "grocery" in "grocery store" or "drug" in "drug store."

Single purpose application software (apps) just fill a business need for many commercial enterprises, particularly related to media. Unlike using your browser, you can't with just one click leave your BBC News app and go to your Washington Post app. If you watch something on ABC's web site via their app, you aren't just one click away from streaming something from NBC's web site. And you'll find you're experiencing a more positive reaction to one app over another - at least "they" hope so.

But while Apple and others may call the multipurpose "office" application software on my iPad an "app," I know it is as a piece of office software which isn't as functional as I'd like and I'm not going to use very often. My "desktop" Win 7 OS computer just does it better and easier.

And.... Even though I'm not enchanted with Safari, I'm finding that I still prefer to do a lot of things on the web rather than through the dedicated apps. Apps do farts very well, however.:sure:


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Mikemok1981 said:


> So where does the openess of the internet come in? Specifically how does denying apps from store affect the openess of the internet? Angry Birds doesnt stop me from going to any site, or charge a premium fee for me accessing youtube or google. I may be missing the point, but the just because the App Store is on the internet doesnt mean it does the surfing for you or affect how you access any other portion of the internet.


The issue/concern is that more and more people are using these "sub-PC" devices, and more and more people are using Apps rather than a web browser to access things on the 'net. But let's say two relatively equivalent companies write an app and submit it to the Apps Store, but one, for whatever reason, is rejected, and the other accepted. The one that's accepted is likely going to gain a lot of business, while the other will suffer, simply because so many people are limiting themselves to "Apps".

What Wales is saying is that this gives Apple the ability to "make or break" companies' online presence for a growning number of people who use their smartphones or tablet almost exclusively as their Internet device. Apple can deny your app for any reason, and there's really nothing you can do about it. That gives Apple a huge amount of power.


----------



## Mikemok1981 (Jul 9, 2009)

BattleZone said:


> The issue/concern is that more and more people are using these "sub-PC" devices, and more and more people are using Apps rather than a web browser to access things on the 'net. But let's say two relatively equivalent companies write an app and submit it to the Apps Store, but one, for whatever reason, is rejected, and the other accepted. The one that's accepted is likely going to gain a lot of business, while the other will suffer, simply because so many people are limiting themselves to "Apps".
> 
> What Wales is saying is that this gives Apple the ability to "make or break" companies' online presence for a growning number of people who use their smartphones or tablet almost exclusively as their Internet device. Apple can deny your app for any reason, and there's really nothing you can do about it. That gives Apple a huge amount of power.


So in reality this is not about openess of the internet, but more about Apple being able to boost business by allowing certain apps on their store. I suppose I can kind of see where the point is in there. But if it really boils down to that, then the people who are going to suffer to that kind of censorship are the ignorant ones who dont know how to use anything other than apps.

I guess my real issue in understanding comes from the fact that I cannot fathom using an app, which by its very design limits your ability to navigate where you wish on the internet, over a standard browser.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Mikemok1981 said:


> I guess my real issue in understanding comes from the fact that I cannot fathom using an app, which by its very design limits your ability to navigate where you wish on the internet, over a standard browser.


I'm with you, but then, I'm pretty technically proficient. A HUGE number of Apple users aren't, which is one of the reasons many non-tech folks choose Apple products: they're easy to use. But those same folks tend to use Apps over the browser for the same reason: the App is easier for them to use.

Again, I think the concern is overblown, at least for now, but I do understand the concern for the future, as more and more people move away from the PC as their primary Internet interface. If you were a company that stood to lose 1/3 of your revenue because Apple didn't approve your App, and you watched a competitor with an approved App take that business away from you, you'd see it as a VERY serious concern...


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Here is something that Apple is doing that that bothers me: Newspapers



> Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs has put his foot down: no free iPad newspaper app access for print subscribers. It's bound to make the publishers wince - and seek any alternative to the Apple way of doing business.


The publishers are correct: If I'm paying for a subscription for a newspaper, I'm not going to pay a second time for the iPad version.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

trh said:


> Here is something that Apple is doing that that bothers me: Newspapers
> 
> The publishers are correct: If I'm paying for a subscription for a newspaper, I'm not going to pay a second time for the iPad version.


Nothing new. I've been a subscriber of New Yorker Magazine for years and was delighted when they announced an iPad app. I downloaded it only to discover that they wanted $4.50 per issue for the exact same content they mail me for around 80¢ an issue! The digital edition is available to me on line for free and I can print the pages as a PDF (see screen shot of PDF print of page 62 of the current edition).

I don't get it.








EDIT: It appears I erred as I tried signing in to the digital edition using Safari on my iPad and I basically got what's available through the New Yorker app at no cost. So now I really don't understand the app at all.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

I'm confused as to why anyone would think the digital edition of the paper should be free. It costs money to produce just like the paper edition.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

I don't see how. You've already done the layout in whatever digital prepress suite you choose, and you just change the target from 300 or 600 dpi to 100. It may take a little finagling but honestly it's not a big deal.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

"RasputinAXP" said:


> I don't see how. You've already done the layout in whatever digital prepress suite you choose, and you just change the target from 300 or 600 dpi to 100. It may take a little finagling but honestly it's not a big deal.


The amount of work required isn't relevant. If you're the content provider you get to set the price. People then buy it or they don't.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> If you're the content provider you get to set the price.


Exactly. And some papers want to give their digital papers free to their paying hard copy subscribers, but Jobs has said "no".


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

From my usage perspective, I haven't noticed a difference in the Internet subsequent to the proliferation of iStores.

--- CHAS


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

trh said:


> Exactly. And some papers want to give their digital papers free to their paying hard copy subscribers, but Jobs has said "no".


I personally think Jobs is shooting himself in the foot here, but that's his decision. If a viable competitor comes along and allows it to the detriment of Apple's subscription rates then I'm sure they'll change their ways.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Folks will migrate to what suits them best .. If bringing up safari to read the New Yorker is cheaper than using the App .. folks will likely use the browser. Heck, you can pin the icon to the home screen as it is and then it pretty much looks like an App - you just have to be connected to the Internet to get it.

It's possible the App downloads content to your iPad so you can read it offline, but @ $4.50/month compared to the print edition @ $.80/month for the exact same content? I'm thinking that won't fly for long.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

trh said:


> Exactly. And some papers want to give their digital papers free to their paying hard copy subscribers, but Jobs has said "no".


There's a very easy solution to this...

The newspaper can charge you for the digital copy and then deliver the printed one for free.

It's just semantics.

In the event you have already paid for your subscription... then they can issue full refunds to anyone who subscribes through the app.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> It's possible the App downloads content to your iPad so you can read it offline, but @ $4.50/month compared to the print edition @ $.80/month for the exact same content? I'm thinking that won't fly for long.


It's worse than that. They publish weekly except for a few issues that are for two weeks. So it's like over $200 a year versus about $40 a year.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

Rob77 said:


> With so many Apple Fan Boys (yes you know who you are ), on this forum....the following should bring about some spirited discussion....
> 
> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1937098/apple-killing-internet


Hilarious! Thanks for sharing the laugh. :lol:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

mutelight said:


> Hilarious! Thanks for sharing the laugh. :lol:


Pretty confused article. I've been fortunate to have chosen Apple in the Mac Plus era, and to not have bailed during the bleak years. But I am not sure I qualify as a fanboi. Not until the iPad comes my way..... there seems to be a few Apple haters here, but just a few dozen.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> Pretty confused article. I've been fortunate to have chosen Apple in the Mac Plus era, and to not have bailed during the bleak years. But I am not sure I qualify as a fanboi. Not until the iPad comes my way..... there seems to be a few Apple haters here, but just a few dozen.


Yeah, they are certainly stretching in that article.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> There's a very easy solution to this...
> 
> The newspaper can charge you for the digital copy and then deliver the printed one for free.


Valid point, but then the newspapers have to pay Apple 30% of the revenue from the digital sales. That is 30% they would rather keep.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

trh said:


> Valid point, but then the newspapers have to pay Apple 30% of the revenue from the digital sales. That is 30% they would rather keep.


Easy solution #2...

Adjust pricing accordingly.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I noticed this story today and as a subscriber am now able to download full weekly content from the New Yorker via the app:


> The New Yorker is now available for subscription on the iPad at $5.99 a month or $59.99 a year. At the same time, print subscribers gain full access, including the made-for-iPad issues....


My previous post below should be disregarded which makes me happy with _New Yorker_ and Apple.



phrelin said:


> ...I've been a subscriber of New Yorker Magazine for years and was delighted when they announced an iPad app. I downloaded it only to discover that they wanted $4.50 per issue for the exact same content they mail me for around 80¢ an issue! The digital edition is available to me on line for free and I can print the pages as a PDF (see screen shot of PDF print of page 62 of the current edition).
> 
> I don't get it.


----------

