I don't see the iPad 'replacing' the internet at this point.
I do see (and agree) that the iPad (+eco system) is seen by the 'conventional' media companies as a way to deliver their (paper) content in the 'digital age' way, while still retaining their controls and potentially getting revenues off it.
But, what's the problem with this? It only happens in Apple's gated community anyway (for now). They cannot implement this on the web.
The problem is cited in the segment I quoted. It is not merely that it happens in Apple's gated community, but that others may see Apple's route as a successful idea and implement equally closed ecosystems.
We can, in a way, see that with WP7 which (unless MS does a 180 in the next few months) will be equally closed. This would likely be backed up by demands from media companies of those who wish to carry their content, and relying on public inertia and apathy (or ignorance?) to carry it. The ultimate worry is where such a situation would steer modern personal computing technology.
Personally, I don't enjoy the thought of having to effectively give up ownership of my hardware to stay up to date with the news. For now I'm content to criticize and work against Apple's closed platform.
Originally Posted by
Seems like a sensationalist article.
Hardly. It voices a concern the rest of the media is more than happy to brush under the carpet. After all, -they're- absolutely gung ho about a closed system that makes it really easy to extract payments from everyone. They'd love it if that were the new way of interacting with "The Web" and the -only- way. The new TV, per se.
The problem is cited in the segment I quoted. It is not merely that it happens in Apple's gated community, but that others may see Apple's route as a successful idea and implement equally closed ecosystems.
I don't understand this point. If it turns out to be something that those media companies want, then Apple has created a solution to a certain problem that they have; which they will probably heavily profit from.
What would the ideal outcome for you, to those media companies' problem then? Let them go on their negative trajectory? Wish for a more 'open' (?) solution to their problem? What's stopping that?
Originally Posted by
We can, in a way, see that with WP7 which (unless MS does a 180 in the next few months) will be equally closed. This would likely be backed up by demands from media companies of those who wish to carry their content, and relying on public inertia and apathy (or ignorance?) to carry it. The ultimate worry is where such a situation would steer modern personal computing technology.
I would call them ignorant too, if there are 'better' alternatives out there that they know of and deliberately ignore. What is 'better' though? Certainly the metric isn't that single dimensional.
Originally Posted by
Personally, I don't enjoy the thought of having to effectively give up ownership of my hardware to stay up to date with the news. For now I'm content to criticize and work against Apple's closed platform.
I agree.
But some people take this stance to the extreme where they think it's their ***'s given right that they have full access to things in their possession that they're familiar with the innerworkings with. They don't take into account the convoluted world of codes licensing (wanting source to binary blobs too?) or indirect business models which may implement cross subsidies (console system & game licenses?).
Originally Posted by
Hardly. It voices a concern the rest of the media is more than happy to brush under the carpet. After all, -they're- absolutely gung ho about a closed system that makes it really easy to extract payments from everyone. They'd love it if that were the new way of interacting with "The Web" and the -only- way. The new TV, per se.
They can't shy away from the web. It's still the main market with audiences much much larger than any closed ecosystems.
Tablet computers have been around for 10 years now. Nobody has wanted them up to this point. Now a few excitable fanatics will get a one, but in the end nothing changes.
I don't understand this point. If it turns out to be something that those media companies want, then Apple has created a solution to a certain problem that they have; which they will probably heavily profit from.
Simple: if it is successful enough they'll demand that anyone else who wants access implement an equally controlled and closed system. No better way to ensure your audience than to deny them alternatives (where alternatives are anything outside the mass-media.)
And if it is as "revolutionary" as some suggest it to be and it shifts personal computing demographics away from the standard, non-locked-down PC, it could hinder those who refuse to adopt. I do suspect that it will not be that successful, however to -rely- on that and ignore the issue would be foolhardy.
Originally Posted by
What would the ideal outcome for you, to those media companies' problem then? Let them go on their negative trajectory?
I wouldn't have a problem with this, since they're more than eager to lobby for laws that are entirely in their favor.
Personally, I'd prefer if most of the major media outlets weren't controlled by a whole six companies, but that's a matter of (brace yourselves) regulation, and an entire topic unto itself.
Originally Posted by
Wish for a more 'open' (?) solution to their problem? What's stopping that?
Because they have no interest in finding a more "open" solution. They'd rather lobby and whine about how their existing business model is being rendered non-functional. Apple gives them a form of control over the "new" model and, if successful, will likely be demanded from anyone else who wants access.
Originally Posted by
But some people take this stance to the extreme where they think it's their ***'s given right that they have full access to things in their possession that they're familiar with the innerworkings with.
Are you seriously suggesting that people don''t have the right to do what they wish with their property? You are, and you're also suggesting that DRM, lockdown, and remote killswitches are justifiable. Maybe we should weld the hood on your car shut, and send you to prison for telling others how to open it?
Originally Posted by
They don't take into account the convoluted world of codes licensing (wanting source to binary blobs too?)
Convoluted, yes, and needlessly so. Preferably there would be no binary blobs, which are the biggest hindrance to doing some ports for the N900 at the moment.
I'm trying to get why you (and others) are so confused that people might not want to have their experiences and property controlled so tightly by corporations, with obvious profit motives that run counter to their own best interests.
Simple: if it is successful enough they'll demand that anyone else who wants access implement an equally controlled and closed system. No better way to ensure your audience than to deny them alternatives (where alternatives are anything outside the mass-media.)
So what? That's how the market works. If not Apple, someone else (or themselves) will get there anyway because that has been the direction that they're aiming for all along.
Originally Posted by
Personally, I'd prefer if most of the major media outlets weren't controlled by a whole six companies, but that's a matter of (brace yourselves) regulation, and an entire topic unto itself.
Perhaps this'll accelerate the eventual show down between monolithic news corporations vs the crowd sourced news aggregation.
Originally Posted by
Because they have no interest in finding a more "open" solution. They'd rather lobby and whine about how their existing business model is being rendered non-functional. Apple gives them a form of control over the "new" model and, if successful, will likely be demanded from anyone else who wants access.
What is a more 'open' solution that can come from them?
I don't see it unless they completely restructure their business model and organization. Which we all know won't happen.
Originally Posted by
Are you seriously suggesting that people don''t have the right to do what they wish with their property? You are, and you're also suggesting that DRM, lockdown, and remote killswitches are justifiable. Maybe we should weld the hood on your car shut, and send you to prison for telling others how to open it?
The terms of the purchase and the purchase price is already outlined before you pull the trigger.
People purchased the original XBOX because it made cheap computers and great set top video player boxes even though they had to play cat-and-mouse with Microsoft to subvert the DRM and all kinds of locks put on it. Those people are willing to take the risk because they're getting really cheap computer due to MS' subsidy (From games licensing, etc) and obviously MS will try to foil them with all the lockdown mechanisms they can (feasibly) acquire and implement.
Similar conditions are being played out now. It's nothing new.
We're not buying 100% physical commodity goods here, a lockdown (for whatever purpose) can be part of the deal.
Originally Posted by
Convoluted, yes, and needlessly so. Preferably there would be no binary blobs, which are the biggest hindrance to doing some ports for the N900 at the moment.
Yes, but you manage to tolerate those binary blobs for the time being, right? It's all a matter of choosing the appropriate trade-offs for their differing priorities.
Originally Posted by
I'm trying to get why you (and others) are so confused that people might not want to have their experiences and property controlled so tightly by corporations, with obvious profit motives that run counter to their own best interests.
If the quality of content and 'experience' is the same on both, I'm sure this will be a simple matter. I don't have the statistics, but I'm guessing the subset of society who hangs on to the sole concept of 'freedom' at the cost of many other things (convenience, availability, aesthetics, etc) is rather small.
