Macworld Forums

Macworld Forums: It's not about the numbers, it's about quality - Macworld Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

It's not about the numbers, it's about quality

#1 User is offline   Macworld 

  • Story Poster
  • Group: MW Bot
  • Posts: 34,402
  • Joined: 30-November 07

Posted 22 January 2012 - 06:01 AM

Post your comments for It's not about the numbers, it's about quality here
0

#2 User is offline   klahanas 

  • Veteran
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 2,037
  • Joined: 01-March 10

  Posted 22 January 2012 - 07:44 AM

Being one of the more (most?) vocal critics against curation, even I can't argue that Apple has the right, and I would add the responsibility, to keep their store in "their image". No argument there. None.

The problem IMHO opinion is that it's the ONLY store allowed on the devices they sell. As such, they are then not only the arbiter over what goes into their store, but they become the arbiter for their users as well. Total and absolute. This is the intolerable part. Apple has every right to control THEIR content, but they are stealing MY right (and yours) to MY content. Microsoft is as bad (in theory) on this, but they are too small in the handheld world to matter much.

There is a solution, of course, but it requires Apple to cede the TOTAL control over the TOTAL environment which it currently enjoys. One only need look at the real world for the solution. Don't like B&N, or Amazon? Go to a boutique bookstore that offers what you want. To the extent that Google curates, why don't they get grief over this? It's because they don't force you to get your content only from their store. By making themselves the sole arbiter, Apple has put the bullseye on themselves. And we're surprised that people are shooting?

This post has been edited by klahanas: 22 January 2012 - 07:50 AM

"One likes to believe in the freedom of music,
But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity."

-Rush
0

#3 User is offline   stevesaboll43v 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 22-January 12

Posted 22 January 2012 - 08:39 AM

Apple allows any and all web apps to run on iOS without approval. Whle this may not be the preferred method, it is an option often overlooked or ignored.
0

#4 User is offline   AdamC 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 12-March 08

Posted 22 January 2012 - 08:52 AM

View Postklahanas, on 22 January 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

Apple has every right to control THEIR content, but they are stealing MY right (and yours) to MY content.


What contents is your that you are protesting, firstly no one is forcing you to use their products and if you are unhappy you can play somewhere that makes you happy, no one force you to come to Apple's playground.
0

#5 User is offline   Duskrider 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 25-July 11

Posted 22 January 2012 - 08:53 AM

So why isn't your right to NOT buy an Apple product just as freeing as them opening up their platform? I don't really understand your argument when there is no way that anyone can argue that Apple has a monopoly on any of this.

To me, your argument is the whole point of buying Apple in the first place, and is the greatest sales feature of Apple's products. The "wild and wooly" world of Windows and all the pain that has brought on has resulted in the closed system of the App Store, and I find that refreshing, not limiting. I don't want to get my Mom or my sister into yet another Windows-esque environment that I will then have to maintain, clean, fix, wipe and reinstall, or otherwise support. Just give them an iPad and leave them be, then go on with my own life. I, for one, have bought totally into the Walled Garden approach. For that matter, if they get a Mac, I then tell them to only get apps through the Mac App Store as well if they want to stay as protected as possible.

View Postklahanas, on 22 January 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

Being one of the more (most?) vocal critics against curation, even I can't argue that Apple has the right, and I would add the responsibility, to keep their store in "their image". No argument there. None.

The problem IMHO opinion is that it's the ONLY store allowed on the devices they sell. As such, they are then not only the arbiter over what goes into their store, but they become the arbiter for their users as well. Total and absolute. This is the intolerable part. Apple has every right to control THEIR content, but they are stealing MY right (and yours) to MY content. Microsoft is as bad (in theory) on this, but they are too small in the handheld world to matter much.

There is a solution, of course, but it requires Apple to cede the TOTAL control over the TOTAL environment which it currently enjoys. One only need look at the real world for the solution. Don't like B&N, or Amazon? Go to a boutique bookstore that offers what you want. To the extent that Google curates, why don't they get grief over this? It's because they don't force you to get your content only from their store. By making themselves the sole arbiter, Apple has put the bullseye on themselves. And we're surprised that people are shooting?

0

#6 User is offline   Aryugaetu 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 08-July 04

  Posted 22 January 2012 - 08:55 AM

Quality? Whose quality?

"I’ll take the curated process and the knowledge that I’m not likely to be offended by the apps I download and use."

Although that is a popular sentiment amongst many people, it has always been a rather sad touchstone indicating a decline in a society for a couple of reasons. First, it indicates a willingness to relent to someone else to edit your world, rather than taking control of your own decisions. I can't imagine why someone would want to have their options intentionally limited, their potential experiences and knowledge edited. Can people actually be that lazy or uncaring about themselves?

Second, it is a firmly held belief by many people that you have some sort of right to not be offended. I see this as a disturbing growing trend of "me first" ego-centrism not unlike a 5-year-old's attitude. I am further astounded that these people think that everyone everywhere should know what will offend them and they actually get upset when the world doesn't customize itself to cater to them. Really? This is commonly expressed as "they should(n’t)…" or "no one wants to see that". Well, I do! I want all of it. Having anything edited, in any way, bothers me as much as stranger walking into my home and turning off my TV because it was against his rules.

For example, in my home, nudity and words were never considered dirty, perhaps inappropriate at certain occasions, but it is never anything so evil as to possibly cause others harm. From my perspective, people train their kids to be ashamed of these things, punished for merely thinking about them; it is not innate for people to associate natural sounds and sights as being the creation of a devil or otherwise somehow (never explained) evil. They are taught to hate their bodies, and themselves if they are not within the arbitrary parameters of the herd, but encouraged to obsess over superficial traits. More importantly, I would never think about editing someone else’s world based on mine.

I don't need or desire editing because there is nothing to edit. Why must I live in your irrationally “sanitized” world? How is that any different from forcing me to pray to your God? Many people think the solution is to bring everything down to the least common denominator, but that only creates a dull homogeny where everyone is living a lie. When you are not exposed to it all, stereotypes and myths are easily created, divisions can more easily be drawn. Natural diversity prevents disease and that is true for a society, too.

Welcome to the real world, see it as it really is, then download just the bits you want, but don't edit my world. I don't want you in it, not even near it. …and take the rest of the hypocritical holier-than-thou herd with you.
-1

#7 User is offline   RipRagged 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 201
  • Joined: 18-April 08

  Posted 22 January 2012 - 09:12 AM

Mr. Gartenberg, thank you for speaking a little sanity on the situation.

@klahanas, you know what the "H" stands for in "IMHO," right? You have the right to not use Apple products if you find them to restrictive. Apple is not denying your rights any more than a Vegan restaurant can deny your right to eat barbecued baby back ribs.

You state the need for a solution to the problem that you can't get a beer in church. That isn't a problem. If you want to fill your car with gas, you don't go to a bank. The iOS experience is what it is. If you want something else, get something else.
0

#8 User is offline   klahanas 

  • Veteran
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 2,037
  • Joined: 01-March 10

Posted 22 January 2012 - 09:23 AM

View PostDuskrider, on 22 January 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

So why isn't your right to NOT buy an Apple product just as freeing as them opening up their platform? I don't really understand your argument when there is no way that anyone can argue that Apple has a monopoly on any of this.

To me, your argument is the whole point of buying Apple in the first place, and is the greatest sales feature of Apple's products. The "wild and wooly" world of Windows and all the pain that has brought on has resulted in the closed system of the App Store, and I find that refreshing, not limiting. I don't want to get my Mom or my sister into yet another Windows-esque environment that I will then have to maintain, clean, fix, wipe and reinstall, or otherwise support. Just give them an iPad and leave them be, then go on with my own life. I, for one, have bought totally into the Walled Garden approach. For that matter, if they get a Mac, I then tell them to only get apps through the Mac App Store as well if they want to stay as protected as possible.

View Postklahanas, on 22 January 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

Being one of the more (most?) vocal critics against curation, even I can't argue that Apple has the right, and I would add the responsibility, to keep their store in "their image". No argument there. None.

The problem IMHO opinion is that it's the ONLY store allowed on the devices they sell. As such, they are then not only the arbiter over what goes into their store, but they become the arbiter for their users as well. Total and absolute. This is the intolerable part. Apple has every right to control THEIR content, but they are stealing MY right (and yours) to MY content. Microsoft is as bad (in theory) on this, but they are too small in the handheld world to matter much.

There is a solution, of course, but it requires Apple to cede the TOTAL control over the TOTAL environment which it currently enjoys. One only need look at the real world for the solution. Don't like B&N, or Amazon? Go to a boutique bookstore that offers what you want. To the extent that Google curates, why don't they get grief over this? It's because they don't force you to get your content only from their store. By making themselves the sole arbiter, Apple has put the bullseye on themselves. And we're surprised that people are shooting?


My not buying the product does not resolve Apple's behavior. Worse, why should I have to make such a concession? A solution exists.
"One likes to believe in the freedom of music,
But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity."

-Rush
0

#9 User is offline   klahanas 

  • Veteran
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 2,037
  • Joined: 01-March 10

Posted 22 January 2012 - 09:26 AM

View PostDuskrider, on 22 January 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

So why isn't your right to NOT buy an Apple product just as freeing as them opening up their platform? I don't really understand your argument when there is no way that anyone can argue that Apple has a monopoly on any of this.

To me, your argument is the whole point of buying Apple in the first place, and is the greatest sales feature of Apple's products. The "wild and wooly" world of Windows and all the pain that has brought on has resulted in the closed system of the App Store, and I find that refreshing, not limiting. I don't want to get my Mom or my sister into yet another Windows-esque environment that I will then have to maintain, clean, fix, wipe and reinstall, or otherwise support. Just give them an iPad and leave them be, then go on with my own life. I, for one, have bought totally into the Walled Garden approach. For that matter, if they get a Mac, I then tell them to only get apps through the Mac App Store as well if they want to stay as protected as possible.

View Postklahanas, on 22 January 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

Being one of the more (most?) vocal critics against curation, even I can't argue that Apple has the right, and I would add the responsibility, to keep their store in "their image". No argument there. None.

The problem IMHO opinion is that it's the ONLY store allowed on the devices they sell. As such, they are then not only the arbiter over what goes into their store, but they become the arbiter for their users as well. Total and absolute. This is the intolerable part. Apple has every right to control THEIR content, but they are stealing MY right (and yours) to MY content. Microsoft is as bad (in theory) on this, but they are too small in the handheld world to matter much.

There is a solution, of course, but it requires Apple to cede the TOTAL control over the TOTAL environment which it currently enjoys. One only need look at the real world for the solution. Don't like B&N, or Amazon? Go to a boutique bookstore that offers what you want. To the extent that Google curates, why don't they get grief over this? It's because they don't force you to get your content only from their store. By making themselves the sole arbiter, Apple has put the bullseye on themselves. And we're surprised that people are shooting?


You state it yourself. Just tell them to buy ONLY from the App Store. No need to prohibit other's. I could see why Apple thinks so, but why you?
"One likes to believe in the freedom of music,
But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity."

-Rush
0

#10 User is offline   klahanas 

  • Veteran
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 2,037
  • Joined: 01-March 10

Posted 22 January 2012 - 09:31 AM

View PostAdamC, on 22 January 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

View Postklahanas, on 22 January 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

Apple has every right to control THEIR content, but they are stealing MY right (and yours) to MY content.


What contents is your that you are protesting, firstly no one is forcing you to use their products and if you are unhappy you can play somewhere that makes you happy, no one force you to come to Apple's playground.


Irrelevant as to what content. Legal content, that's all.
But since you ask...There's no content in Flash?
I can't read content critical of public figures? (Not as per the the Store Guidelines)
One can't duplicate functionality? How about improve functionality.
Hey, I might want to target iOS users to consider the virtues off an abacus. Does it matter?

I repeat, Apple is not obliged to supply said content. And no one is forcing you to get it either. Impeding it is another matter.

This post has been edited by klahanas: 22 January 2012 - 09:33 AM

"One likes to believe in the freedom of music,
But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity."

-Rush
0

#11 User is offline   klahanas 

  • Veteran
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 2,037
  • Joined: 01-March 10

Posted 22 January 2012 - 09:34 AM

View PostAryugaetu, on 22 January 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Quality? Whose quality?

"I’ll take the curated process and the knowledge that I’m not likely to be offended by the apps I download and use."

Although that is a popular sentiment amongst many people, it has always been a rather sad touchstone indicating a decline in a society for a couple of reasons. First, it indicates a willingness to relent to someone else to edit your world, rather than taking control of your own decisions. I can't imagine why someone would want to have their options intentionally limited, their potential experiences and knowledge edited. Can people actually be that lazy or uncaring about themselves?

Second, it is a firmly held belief by many people that you have some sort of right to not be offended. I see this as a disturbing growing trend of "me first" ego-centrism not unlike a 5-year-old's attitude. I am further astounded that these people think that everyone everywhere should know what will offend them and they actually get upset when the world doesn't customize itself to cater to them. Really? This is commonly expressed as "they should(n’t)…" or "no one wants to see that". Well, I do! I want all of it. Having anything edited, in any way, bothers me as much as stranger walking into my home and turning off my TV because it was against his rules.

For example, in my home, nudity and words were never considered dirty, perhaps inappropriate at certain occasions, but it is never anything so evil as to possibly cause others harm. From my perspective, people train their kids to be ashamed of these things, punished for merely thinking about them; it is not innate for people to associate natural sounds and sights as being the creation of a devil or otherwise somehow (never explained) evil. They are taught to hate their bodies, and themselves if they are not within the arbitrary parameters of the herd, but encouraged to obsess over superficial traits. More importantly, I would never think about editing someone else’s world based on mine.

I don't need or desire editing because there is nothing to edit. Why must I live in your irrationally “sanitized” world? How is that any different from forcing me to pray to your God? Many people think the solution is to bring everything down to the least common denominator, but that only creates a dull homogeny where everyone is living a lie. When you are not exposed to it all, stereotypes and myths are easily created, divisions can more easily be drawn. Natural diversity prevents disease and that is true for a society, too.

Welcome to the real world, see it as it really is, then download just the bits you want, but don't edit my world. I don't want you in it, not even near it. …and take the rest of the hypocritical holier-than-thou herd with you.

Ran out of +1's. Please accept an honorary one.
"One likes to believe in the freedom of music,
But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity."

-Rush
0

#12 User is offline   klahanas 

  • Veteran
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 2,037
  • Joined: 01-March 10

Posted 22 January 2012 - 09:44 AM

View PostRipRagged, on 22 January 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Mr. Gartenberg, thank you for speaking a little sanity on the situation.

@klahanas, you know what the "H" stands for in "IMHO," right? You have the right to not use Apple products if you find them to restrictive. Apple is not denying your rights any more than a Vegan restaurant can deny your right to eat barbecued baby back ribs.

You state the need for a solution to the problem that you can't get a beer in church. That isn't a problem. If you want to fill your car with gas, you don't go to a bank. The iOS experience is what it is. If you want something else, get something else.

You surely aren't advocating "conversion", submission, obedience, worship and devotion to be an Apple customer. Are you?
"One likes to believe in the freedom of music,
But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity."

-Rush
0

#13 User is offline   Promogod 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 22-January 12

Posted 22 January 2012 - 10:54 AM

View Postklahanas, on 22 January 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

View PostRipRagged, on 22 January 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Mr. Gartenberg, thank you for speaking a little sanity on the situation.

@klahanas, you know what the "H" stands for in "IMHO," right? You have the right to not use Apple products if you find them to restrictive. Apple is not denying your rights any more than a Vegan restaurant can deny your right to eat barbecued baby back ribs.

You state the need for a solution to the problem that you can't get a beer in church. That isn't a problem. If you want to fill your car with gas, you don't go to a bank. The iOS experience is what it is. If you want something else, get something else.

You surely aren't advocating "conversion", submission, obedience, worship and devotion to be an Apple customer. Are you?


Nope. I think he's just advocating that you have a choice. If you don't like the way Apple does business, choose another platform.
0

#14 User is offline   jdhayes117 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 31-March 08

Posted 22 January 2012 - 11:32 AM

View Postklahanas, on 22 January 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

View PostRipRagged, on 22 January 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Mr. Gartenberg, thank you for speaking a little sanity on the situation.

@klahanas, you know what the "H" stands for in "IMHO," right? You have the right to not use Apple products if you find them to restrictive. Apple is not denying your rights any more than a Vegan restaurant can deny your right to eat barbecued baby back ribs.

You state the need for a solution to the problem that you can't get a beer in church. That isn't a problem. If you want to fill your car with gas, you don't go to a bank. The iOS experience is what it is. If you want something else, get something else.

You surely aren't advocating "conversion", submission, obedience, worship and devotion to be an Apple customer. Are you?

Klahanas, you really are incredibly arrogant. I'm not sure you are aware of this, but your posts frequently come across as the whining of a very spoiled child being told no. As has been repeatedly suggested above, if you don't like Apple's way, go somewhere else. Apple, as an independent corporation, is free to choose the business model that works best for them. From observation, it appears that they have chosen a model that focuses on producing high quality products that focus on top-to-bottom integration of the hardware, operating system, and applications. Their model also extends to managing the quality of the products which are available through their distribution system (iTunes, App Store, etc) so that the end user experience is consistent. I have been a Mac user since the MacPlus in 1986. I have fully bought into their model because I know I can count on easy to use products of consistent high quality with little threat of malware or other threats.

At work, I use PCs. I've built and owned PCs and I've owned non-Apple phones. I've also dealt with viruses, poor user interfaces, and horrendous technical support. While quite clearly, that is not true of every non-Apple product (hardware or software), it is consistent enough to bring me back to Apple every time I've strayed. And, despite your railing about limitations on content in the Apple distribution system and with their hardware, I have yet to find a single instance where Apple banned or blocked something that I desired to do. I'm not a technical neophyte Klahanas. I build my own white boxes, hand choose the parts, experiment with various operating system distributions, tweak the processors and the network settings, etc. I've also seriously considered jail breaking my iPhone and/or iPad. Every time I consider it, I find that there is nothing that I want to do that jail-breaking provides that I can't already do. I really don't need the ability to reskin my phone. I don't need another keyboard, and I don't need the opportunity to inadvertently download malware because of those same choices. Go spend a little time browsing the Cydia store and you'll see what I mean. Contrariwise, I have yet to find a single instance where Apple has effectively blocked something I would like to do. There may be cases where I have to wait for a capability, but I'd rather Apple get it right than get it fast.

As you can see by the explosive rise in the sales of Apple products, the consistently high reviews their products and services receive, and the extreme loyalty of Apple product users, an awful lot of people agree with me. If you want to play in Apple's sandbox with the rest of us, you have to play by their rules. If that doesn't suit you, you are more than welcome to take your toys and play somewhere else.
0

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users