What bloggers are saying about the latest in information technology



The difference between Apple and Microsoft has more to do with strategic marketing and business model than technology. Despite whatever complaints you may have about Windows, Microsoft, or Bill Gates, the fact is that you can run Windows on computers from any one of hundreds of different vendors (or even build your own from commodity parts), and that has had the consumer-friendly result of giving us cheap hardware. Case in point, my wife just purchased a new Toshiba notebook, running Microsoft Vista, on sale at Best Buy for $350. Can you get a new Apple notebook for that price? No, I didn't think so. Apple's strategy has been quite different, in that they want to have control over both hardware and software. Now from a purely capitalist viewpoint, both models have their merits, and Apple, despite having only a small share of the market, still does quite well for its shareholders.



On the iPhone front, Apple's approach is similar. They want to sell us the iPhone at a high price -- even at the new low price of $399, it's still steep -- but they also want to control the service provider and the software that runs on the device. Locking users into an AT&T contract gives Apple an enormous revenue stream from AT&T, which pays Apple for each new contract it gets as a result of iPhone connections. Apple just recently made a similar deal with a UK telecom company. Now from a consumer perspective, wouldn't it be great if all sorts of independent developers could come up with new applications for the iPhone? Such a strategy would enhance its usability and possibly even lead to higher sales. But, as noted in a CNet blog this week, Steve Jobs has made it clear that Apple will fight off all attempts to unlock the iPhone or to develop unauthorized applications for it. Speculation is that Apple will fight off these attempts with frequent updates to the software, designed to break hacks, and prevent the use of applications that Apple doesn't directly profit from.



O'Reilly Network talks about the whole issue of the iPhone SDK and whether it is worth squat -- developers can write web apps for the iPhone, but not native apps -- at least not authorized native apps, anyway. Hackers have been writing native apps for the iPhone since Day One. O'Reilly asks whether developers see this policy as an insult, or as something designed to increase use of web apps; quite a number of readers responded "insult". One of O'Reilly's respondents proudly proclaimed that yes, it is in fact possible to create apps on the iPhone, and puts forth for our consideration his game that lets you "whack" Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer whenever he pops up on the iPhone screen. Somehow, I don't think Apple's going to go too far out of their way to put the kibosh on that one.



Gearlog had posted an earlier interview with an Apple marketing bigwig, and was at first positive about the ability of independents to continue writing native iPhone apps-although an update on the blog now notes that Apple software updates are very likely to break them. According to the update, although Apple will not directly forbid use of such applications, but if one of them causes problems on your iPhone, "don't go crying to Apple, 'cause it ain't their problem."

ITworld.com

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine