At 29 Jun 2009 11:25:44 -0500 Jon Ribbens wrote:

> >> Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly
> >> (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference.
> >
> > Really? You'd rather be mugged by a "nice guy" rather than a mean one?
>
> No, but we haven't been "mugged", you're just raising the spectre that
> we *might* be in the future.


No, the iPhone is locked-down now. You seem to have missed Dvorak's point-
if Microsoft had released the exact same iPhone, (though presumably
connecting to Zune software or WMP instead of iTunes, of course!) with all
of its software coming from the "Microsoft App store," requiring MS'
approval to be included, the entire industry would've been screaming bloody
murder.


> If it was Microsoft doing it, we would
> know they can't be trusted. If it's any non-monopolist, then the
> market will probably do a good job of keeping them in line.

Hence "mugged by a nice guy." Apple has never been a monopolist in
computers because they've never been in that power position, (though they
threw their weight around plenty battling clone makers in the Apple II days)
but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Look at the
iPod infrastructure, where Apple is in a near-monopoly position. The Pre
debuts with the ability to sync with iTunes, (which everyone now considers
the de facto "standard" in music management) and Apple immediately responds
with warnings that future iTunes updates could break third-party sync
functionality.

If Palm had built the Pre to sync with Zune, MS would be dancing in the
streets because it would mean someone might actually use it!

> >> Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that
> >> whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD?
> >
> > It was neither. Read it slowly: it was a hypothetical- hence the use
of the
> > word "if". "IF the next Macs were as locked down as the iPhone, WOULD
users
> > agree..." I'm not suggesting this a slippery slope Apple will ride up
to
> > Macs- I'm just saying a lot of people here are defending practices
employed
> > on the iPhone that they'd be horrified to see on a computer.
>
> That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer.
> Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other?


An iPhone has the power of Wintel and Mac OS laptops built several years ago,
so excuses that some of the restrictions, like prohibiting background
execution, are due to "limited RAM/power, etc." make less sense given that
context.

And limiting app distribution to a single "source seems to be a universal
sin of closed platforms like game consoles. Why does that make any more
sense on a "mobile computing platform" than on a computer?


> > I'm not sure it'd be that easy to "screw them over" when they could
simply
> > flash back to "legit" before upgrading.
>
> ... and the upgrade could easily remove the non-official stuff.
> But it doesn't, because Apple didn't make it do that, even though they
> easily could.

What "non-official stuff" are you referring to? Upgrading an unlocked
phone legitimately, relocks the phones. I'm not aware of that happening
with any other flashable phone. Except for the iPhone, SIM unlocks, like
diamonds, are forever.


> > Not at all- just observation. Sling poo-pooed the idea of a jailbroken
> > version when asked, as did Tom Tom when making noise in the press that
they
> > had an iPhone version "ready to roll" a year ago. There seems, from
casual
> > observation, to be a (perfect logical) incentive to keep a business
partner
> > like Apple happy, and not undermine their business model.
>
> Or they just don't want to undermine their own brand by making "dodgy"
> products.


That's a perfectly valid theory as well. I'll concede that point to you.