Hi Erik and Brian
Erik, I'm with Brian on some of his response to
your post on this -- and share your concerns in
some other respects.
At 3:35 PM +1100 16/02/11, Brian Ferguson wrote:
>OK Erik, but you are wrong. See Below.
>
>On 15/02/2011, at 2:03 PM, Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:
>
> > Well Brian.:-) - I do fear that this on the
>long term might cause the death of NisusWriter
>for all of us, who donot want to be depending on
>what Apple decide to be useful for us. I could
>never dream of buying _anything_ through such a
>store - Apple AppStore or any other for that
>matter!...
>
>You refer to 'all of us'. ... Mostly the same
>people are contributing as were here is 2000 or
>so. ... But the Apple World has expanded since
>then.... It did not get there by sitting on its
>hands; it got there by innovation and product
>development.
>
>One of these is by developing the way its
>products can be delivered to old and new
>customers. And those new customers are people
>who were not much more than ten years old in
>2000...
>The current crop of young ones want access to a
>far greater range of ideas and they, generally,
>believe they need it fairly quickly.
Not just youngsters. some are even as old as some
fo us! :D Take a look at this -- the guy did
his whole travel blog with his iPhone -- pix,
text, audio, the web.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=37740306
> > And - if what we hear in the press - is
>correct that Apple claims up to 30% of every
>copy sold through AppStore, it also will reduce
>the Nisus income with that 30%!
>
>What's new about that? Go to the Nisus Forum
>where it is spelled out. See later.
This is a pretty fair division, actually. An
ordinary retailer takes around 50% of the price
you pay (although it is lower on computers and
stuff because of oversupply these days).
My only concern is that Apple should leave the
field open for people to use apps and content
other than what it is selling. Part of the
agreement is that Apple can poke round in your
device. It could adopt a position on the
enforcement of copyright on music, for example,
and stop iTunes playing anything it had not sold
through the app store UNLESS the device owner
proved ownership of copyright license. in the
parlance of today -- that would suck! It would
amount of "guilty until proven innocent". It
would be unjust as well -- not everything is on
the US industry databases.
>A developer cannot just load his wonder child in
>to the Store - thank goodness. Just imagine how
>much damage could be done to your system by a
>malevolent scammer. Apple ensures the integrity
>of every product.
That's fine, Brian, so long as it does.
> > We have already seen a few results and
>consequencies of this new policy from Apple here
>in Denmark... Our next-largest newspaper - House
>of Berlinske - has been denied to sell their
>iPhone/iPad/iPodTouch app through AppStore, and
>users of iPhone/iPad/iPodtouch are forbidden the
>use of the app, and if they do, the app will
>automatically be removed through next software
>update.
>...
> > Reason? - House of Berlinske consist of two
>large newspapers - Berlinske Tidende - a very
>serious newspaper, and a more hm...
>'boulevard-like' newspaper called B.T., which
>sometimes - in fact nearly every day - shows one
>or more pin-ups... The chief of AppleDenmark
>said to the press that "We donot allow such
>things either sold nor used on our products".
>
>That's good news. I suspect that Playboy may
>also be off-limits too. And the London 'Sun'.
I'm less sure about that, Brian. As a long time
working journalist and media critic, I see a
difference between a boulevard type paper (as
Erik calls it), such as MX in Melbourne, which
basically is simply a total waste of paper and
space -- it is breathtaking in its airheadedness,
and something hardcore like Playboy (or I'm told
it is!), which is totally reliant on gross
exploitation of sex. Further, I am heartily sick
of the way sex is used to sell everything these
days and in Australia, you can hardly drive a
kilometre without a bum or tit bring stuck in
your face on a giant billboard, to say nothing of
the signs for improving your sexual performance!
On the other hand, I don't see sexual titillation
as nearly as harmful (if we could just stop
worrying about it -- most of the harm is in our
judeo-christian heads) as outright slaughter of
war, and the lies we are told through the media
by political, commercial, and various sectional
interests about matters which affect us deeply,
such as war, crime, drugs, climate change ...
Apple -- in response to no ethical standard of
its own but because of a fear of
political/commercial consequences from the
Christian fundies in the USA -- will come down on
a newspaper which might be big in Denmark but is
relatively speaking, a smallish player.
BUT are they outlawing apps are produced by the
big movie studios showing bloody violence? Are
they outlawing games which are kill, kill, kill?
> > And what will happen, if and when Apple
>suddenly decides that this or thus application -
>fx. NisusWriter, OpenOffice, Filemaker, Adobe
>CS, etx. - no longer will have the rights to be
>used on the Apple systems, because we no longer
>can buy these apps outside the AppStore?
Erik points out that updating the device OS
allows Apple to wipe out existing, non-Apple
approved and sold apps. What would be your
response, Brian, if updating the OS on your Mac
wiped out apps and content you hadn't bought from
Apple?
You can't discount this happening. You can't
trust Apple any more than you can trust any other
corporation. Corporations don't have feelings.
> > As things are looking now, this will end up
>in a totally closed and monopolic system that
>indeed is against not only the U.S. anti-trust
>law suite suites, but indeed also against nearly
>any law suite within the EU with associated
>countries - i.e. a restriction in our psersonal
>rights to use what we prefer.
>
>Oh come on, Erik. It has nothing to do with
>anti-trust laws. There is no restriction on what
>a person may wish to buy nor on where or from
>whom she/he may want to buy.
Well, yes there is, if the OS wipes out
non-approved apps/content when it updates. But
Erik is wrong in expecting US anti-trust law to
be applicable. That's already gone overboard.
Microsoft made sure of that.
>Believe me, Apple the common sense to make sure
>it stays in business by giving its customers the
>best product it can.
An old truism and a load of rubbish, Brian. They
will maximise their profit by persuading you to
accept whatever product provides them with the
most profit. That's how commerce works. Go into
your Woolworths or Coles supermarket and see if
you can get the best product. You'll get what
you're given. They will buy substandard canned
tomatoes from elsewhere and dump out good stuff
on which they have a lower overall margin
(including payments and special incentives, to
the supermarket, to give the stuff a good shelf
position and even stock it!).
Further, both these retailers are vertically
integrating -- they are reaching back up the
supply line to become the become the processors
and through ownership or contracting, the
producers as well.
That kills competition.
Its very like what Apple is doing from the
manufacturing position. Microsoft and Apple. Or
rather, Microsoft, Apple and Google.
Like Erik, I'm not sanguine at all.
Kind regards
Geoffrey Heard
Business writer, Editor, Publisher
The Worsley Press
|
