Apple App Store now has One Hundred Thousand iPhone Apps
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 100,000 iPhone Apps as of Oct 27, 2009
On Oct 27, 11:27*pm, Apple App Store now has One Hundred Thousand
iPhone Apps <vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The App Store has passed the one hundred thousand mark for the
> iPhone..
>
> So many iPhone apps, so little time....
>
> http://www.examiner.com/x-27681-Gree...xaminer~y2009m...
>
Wrong date,,, Larry pass m the jack Daniels..
At 27 Oct 2009 20:27:07 -0700 Apple App Store now has One Hundred
Thousand iPhone Apps wrote:
> The App Store has passed the one hundred thousand mark for the
> iPhone..
>
> So many iPhone apps, so little time....
>
>
> http://www.examiner.com/x-27681-Greensboro-Apple-News-
Examiner~y2009m10d27-iTunes-tops-100000-iPhone-Apps
>
> Remember it is more than the Apple hardware, it is the vast number of
> apps too. More apps by tenfold compared to the next closest
> competitor.
>
> The Android phones are not compatible with iTunes, 100,000 iPhone Apps
> or the easy to use Apple store - GOOGLE FAIL.
>
>
> NEXT...
While the number of apps available for iPhones is impresive, the fact
that Android phones don't require iTunes is a FEATURE not a failure!
> While the number of apps available for iPhones is impresive, the fact
> that Android phones don't require iTunes is a FEATURE not a failure!
iTunes works great on Macs, but yes, if you are still limping along on a
Windows machine then I could see the problem. Windows just can't handle
robust apps like iTunes.
At 28 Oct 2009 21:15:49 -0600 David Moyer wrote:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > While the number of apps available for iPhones is impresive, the fact
> > that Android phones don't require iTunes is a FEATURE not a failure!
>
> iTunes works great on Macs, but yes, if you are still limping along on
a
> Windows machine then I could see the problem. Windows just can't handle
> robust apps like iTunes.
It has less to do with the quality of iTunes and more about the reliance
on desktop computer software at all. How many cellular phones need to
connect to a computer before they can make their first phone call? Only
one. That's just industrial-strength stupid. The fact that the software
happens to be iTunes, while annoying, is immaterial.
Android phones, by contrast, never have to connect to a computer for
anything. An important feature for the future, particularly in
developing countries where the smartphone might be the only "computer"
its user owns. I can't remember the last time I plugged the phone I'm
typing this post on into a computer. My phone is, to me, a tiny laptop.
My laptop never connects to my desktop, so why should my "palmtop?"
In article <jY9Gm.535$zr.44@newsfe04.iad>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> It has less to do with the quality of iTunes and more about the reliance
> on desktop computer software at all. How many cellular phones need to
> connect to a computer before they can make their first phone call? Only
> one. That's just industrial-strength stupid. The fact that the software
> happens to be iTunes, while annoying, is immaterial.
more than one: google android devices.
> Android phones, by contrast, never have to connect to a computer for
> anything.
yes they do. they require activation, just like the iphone.
> > Windows machine then I could see the problem. Windows just can't handle
> > robust apps like iTunes.
>
> It has less to do with the quality of iTunes and more about the reliance
> on desktop computer software at all. How many cellular phones need to
> connect to a computer before they can make their first phone call? Only
> one. That's just industrial-strength stupid. The fact that the software
> happens to be iTunes, while annoying, is immaterial.
cellphones perhaps not, but all smartphones need some syncing ability to
become highly functional. yes, apple's end to end consistency requires
authentication for that first, non-911 call... which is a non-issue. and
sure, it would be nice to have a little app for that sole purpose, but
then a person might not ever discover the other 100,000 features of the
iphone, or learn how to used the embedded ipod, or sync addresses or
calendars, etc.
> Android phones, by contrast, never have to connect to a computer for
> anything. An important feature for the future, particularly in
> developing countries where the smartphone might be the only "computer"
> its user owns. I can't remember the last time I plugged the phone I'm
> typing this post on into a computer. My phone is, to me, a tiny laptop.
> My laptop never connects to my desktop, so why should my "palmtop?"
sure, but that's why the android phones will never be highly
successful... they'll end up like linux, just a hairball of needless
inconsistency. there is no center point, each android model will be it's
own orbit, never adding up to a pleasant user experience.
At 29 Oct 2009 04:26:36 -0500 nospam wrote:
> In article <jY9Gm.535$zr.44@newsfe04.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > It has less to do with the quality of iTunes and more about the
reliance
> > on desktop computer software at all. How many cellular phones need to
> > connect to a computer before they can make their first phone call?
Only
> > one. That's just industrial-strength stupid. The fact that the
software
> > happens to be iTunes, while annoying, is immaterial.
>
> more than one: google android devices.
>
> > Android phones, by contrast, never have to connect to a computer for
> > anything.
>
> yes they do. they require activation, just like the iphone.
I'm certainly no expert on the Android platform, but my understanding is
that they activate OTA via cellular data using Google credentials- not
via a PC. (Without a little hacking they can't activate via WiFi,
forcing the cell data requirement on end users.)
At 29 Oct 2009 09:15:48 -0600 David Moyer wrote:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > > Windows machine then I could see the problem. Windows just can't
> > > handle robust apps like iTunes.
> >
> > It has less to do with the quality of iTunes and more about the
> > reliance on desktop computer software at all. How many cellular
> > phones need to connect to a computer before they can make their
> > first phone call? Only
> > one. That's just industrial-strength stupid. The fact that the
> > software happens to be iTunes, while annoying, is immaterial.
>
> cellphones perhaps not, but all smartphones need some syncing ability
to
> become highly functional. yes, apple's end to end consistency requires
> authentication for that first, non-911 call... which is a non-issue.
and
> sure, it would be nice to have a little app for that sole purpose, but
> then a person might not ever discover the other 100,000 features of the
> iphone, or learn how to used the embedded ipod, or sync addresses or
> calendars, etc.
A phone with wireless connectivity need never connect to any computer via
a cable. That's pretty 20th century for the UberPhone, isn't it? When
was the last time you connected your Mac to another Mac to transfer a
song or a file?
> > Android phones, by contrast, never have to connect to a computer for
> > anything. An important feature for the future, particularly in
> > developing countries where the smartphone might be the only "computer"
> > its user owns. I can't remember the last time I plugged the phone I'm
> > typing this post on into a computer. My phone is, to me, a tiny
laptop.
> > My laptop never connects to my desktop, so why should my "palmtop?"
>
> sure, but that's why the android phones will never be highly
> successful... they'll end up like linux, just a hairball of needless
> inconsistency. there is no center point, each android model will be
it's
> own orbit, never adding up to a pleasant user experience.
How is than different from desktop PCs that come from a variety of
manufacturers with different capabilities? The underlying OS is the
same, and they'll all use the same apps within their hardware (e.g. a VGA-
res game mght not play on a model with lower res, etc.)
Pretend this is an iPhone advantage all you want, but like with the iPod,
multiple form factors will come eventually to iPhone OS- it'll have to in
order to increase market share. Not everyone wants a thin brick as a
phone just because Apple tells them to.
> A phone with wireless connectivity need never connect to any computer via
> a cable. That's pretty 20th century for the UberPhone, isn't it? When
> was the last time you connected your Mac to another Mac to transfer a
> song or a file?
sure, but there are several reasons for that. mainly, it's an ipod as
well as a phone and the music industry has always been leery of what can
be pushed over the air, so using a cable was the only legal way for
years, 2nd is battery, if you are going to charge it, why not sync at
the same time? 3rd it's surprising how many people with cell phones
don't have wifi or mobileme... so by cable is the least common
denominator. of course it will happen, especially now that itunes can
share, but that's what software updates are for. be patient.
> > sure, but that's why the android phones will never be highly
> > successful... they'll end up like linux, just a hairball of needless
> > inconsistency. there is no center point, each android model will be
> it's
> > own orbit, never adding up to a pleasant user experience.
>
> How is than different from desktop PCs that come from a variety of
> manufacturers with different capabilities? The underlying OS is the
> same, and they'll all use the same apps within their hardware (e.g. a VGA-
> res game mght not play on a model with lower res, etc.)
yes, but that's the philosophical difference between apple and all the
the rest. apple is vertically integrated, the rest, is a chaotic mess.
in the apple ecosystem, everything pretty much works as expected... it's
logical. with the droid and the rest of the android handsets, and pcs in
general, you're going to have 3-10+ companies in the mix, so none of it
will quite work as envisioned.
> Pretend this is an iPhone advantage all you want, but like with the iPod,
> multiple form factors will come eventually to iPhone OS- it'll have to in
> order to increase market share. Not everyone wants a thin brick as a
> phone just because Apple tells them to.
yes, of course, just as wireless syncing will arrive on the iphone as
well, but apple has the design discipline to "wait" until the time is
right, not kludge something together to say they have "x or y feature"
as it appears the droid has done.
100,000 iPhone Apps as of Oct 27, 1990 
Linear Mode
