Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[melkiades]

Hi guys,

I read this thread with much interest and I must say I'm quite surprised to see how easily JR is giving up on this one.
Also, why haven't you discussed a bit more the obvious solution here, which is to crack/jailbreak the iPhone and encourage JR to publish support for cracked iPhones.  The DevTeam has some material in that direction and we're all awaiting www.ziphone.com's crack for 2.0.  It shouldn't be called a crack but a "service to the community".

One solution that exists now is to revert to the 1.1 firmware and use Ziphone's crack but that means giving up on some of the 2.0's features.  I personally canceled my very expensive Canadian data plan so I'm not using 3G anymore and will probably downgrade.

The Apple policy is extremist and unacceptable.  They've been annoying the world with their terrible philosophy for decades and this way of thinking simply does not apply in the age of Open Source, P2P, and the overall spirit of sharing that the Internet has given birth to.  Apple locks competitors out so competitors like JR should definitely encourage cracking that phone instead of sounding uncomplaining and accepting as they do today.

Cheers,
Melkiades

[JimH]

The Apple policy is extremist and unacceptable.  They've been annoying the world with their terrible philosophy for decades and this way of thinking simply does not apply in the age of Open Source, P2P, and the overall spirit of sharing that the Internet has given birth to.  Apple locks competitors out so competitors like JR should definitely encourage cracking that phone instead of sounding uncomplaining and accepting as they do today.

I agree with most of what you say.  We don't complain much because I doubt it would have any effect.  If enough users complained to Apple or made enough noise on boards, it would be more meaningful.

However, I don't think that Apple will do anything until either they get in trouble with the government or people stop buying their equipment.  Neither seem close to reality.

[raldo]

[...]
However, I don't think that Apple will do anything until either they get in trouble with the government or people stop buying their equipment.  Neither seem close to reality.

It's their business strategy and they'll fight keeping things that way. Why should they let it be easy to reengineer protocols when they earn money through the lock between unit-application?

It's a paradox how Apple has gained an image of being "progressive" when they're really retroactive as h***. Compare with Microsoft: A relatively open/well  defined API. You can even debug into far int their core if you develop on embedded systems!

Apple now has a much larger market share in the US on the PC segment. One could argue that this is probably driven by their "image" in handhelds.

In the market for handhelds, open solutions are bound to win in the long run. As soon as Amazon opens up mp3 downloads for Europe I'll start downloading, and I'll gladly pay for it. I'll use my WM device synced with MC.

[glynor]

One thing I think is "wrong" with this conversation is the attribution of qualities of how Apple treats their handheld division to generalized discussions of how Apple "works".  Apple is much more open with their software on the desktop side than Microsoft.  True, they don't allow you to run OSX on generic hardware (officially supported, it is certainly possible homebrew style), but otherwise, they are very supporting of open standards and even open source software on out of their desktop division.  Darwin (the OSX kernel) is open source, as is WebKit (Safari), SproutCore, and a whole host of other frameworks and back-ends to their software.  Many people look at the hardware lock-in as being designed to "protect" hardware sales.  This may be true to a small degree, but I suspect it is more targeted at protecting the crash-free image of their OS than anything (which is then used to drive hardware sales).  They control the hardware, and therefore it is easier to control the OS.  There is no "driver hell" like Vista encountered on release.

In comparison, it took serious anti-trust enforcement from the EU (the US wimped out when the administration changed) to get Microsoft to release even appropriate documentation for their APIs for their OS.  And they still haven't fully complied.  They certainly do not release and support any open source software for any of their core projects.

On the flipside, with their handhelds, Apple is certainly on the other side of the fence.

I think it comes down to simple business decisions every time, designed to preserve shareholder value.  Apple locks their handhelds down because they can and they'll still sell.  Microsoft doesn't go quite as far because they can't (though their handhelds certainly aren't "open" in any sense of the word either).  Period.  Perhaps eventually Apple''s walled garden will fall down, but I think it will depend on Apple screwing up in a spectacular fashion, not on consumer demand.  People have shown over the past 4-5 years that they just don't care that much, and that using iTunes+iPod is "good enough".

[glynor]

That said...

Is the premise of this thread true?  Is JRiver "giving up" on supporting all new iPods?

[JimH]

No.  But I think we'll let the dust settle before we go on.

If I'm not mistaken, the iPhone and Touch have had three different versions of firmware in the last 6 months.

[bwaldron]

I think it comes down to simple business decisions every time, designed to preserve shareholder value.

Sure. Same as Microsoft...or just about any company. The point someone made above still holds. Apple has an "image" that is at odds with reality.

[glynor]

The point someone made above still holds. Apple has an "image" that is at odds with reality.

My point was that the perception is only at-odds with reality when you look exclusively at their handheld division.  If you look at their software division, they are actually remarkably "open" compared to most other commercial software vendors (in as far as both open source and open standards friendly).  They certainly aren't the absolute best in this regard (those "awards" would all go to open source software vendors), but they are way better than most of their competitors in the same market spaces.  I mentioned the OS and Safari examples, but there are tons of others.  Other examples: Final Cut Pro and Quicktime are much more standards compliant and friendly than anything put out by Avid.  Quicktime actually is the basis for the open MPEG-4 video standard!  Logic is a lot more open on hardware (and standards) than Pro Tools.

I guess my point is this: Apple is more than iTunes and iPods, and slanted generalizations can be made about most companies by limiting your view to only one market segment.

Could they do better?  Yes.  Do I wish they would do better?  Certainly.  Considering everything the company does, are they "less open than Microsoft"?  Certainly not.

[raldo]

Wrt. DLL hell: Business strategy and software stragegy united: Of course you're going to get into this situation when you say: "anyone can connect", anyone can make drivers, anyone can make motherboards, etc. No wonder MS had challenges during the introduction of Vista. And, btw. no wonder that their market share is that big...

My point was that the perception is only at-odds with reality when you look exclusively at their handheld division.  If you look at their software division, they are actually remarkably "open" compared to most other commercial software vendors (in as far as both open
[...]

I'd say that Microsoft also is "remarkably open" in proportion to the heat they've received in the media the last few years.

I think that antitrust is bull in a dynamic market like the one we're talking about. Think back 3 years and think about MS: strugglig with WinCe (I believe CE has been on the market approx 10 years) increasing marketshare on desktops. Look now: Some Success with WM, Pocket PC (CE in another package), On the defensive on desktops. Things are marginally stable and may swing any direction. In such a situation, users have a lot of power, and I'm quite sure Apple's image will switch at some point in the future.

[bwaldron]

I guess my point is this: Apple is more than iTunes and iPods, and slanted generalizations can be made about most companies by limiting your view to only one market segment.

Could they do better?  Yes.  Do I wish they would do better?  Certainly.  Considering everything the company does, are they "less open than Microsoft"?  Certainly not.

I don't think we really disagree. My problem is with those who make those generalizations; i.e., those who are blindly loyal to Apple and/or who blindly bash MS.

Since we're on an portable audio forum, I have to say that while I like Apple's hardware, I really dislike their business practices in this particular area, and will likely not be purchasing any more hardware from them.

[melkiades]

Since we're on an portable audio forum, I have to say that while I like Apple's hardware, I really dislike their business practices in this particular area, and will likely not be purchasing any more hardware from them.

Hmm, Apple's hardware is likable esthetically, but there are obvious flaws hardware-like.  The original iPod and subsequent models' batteries is the most unbelievable example: the battery couldn't be changed.  After x amount of recharges, it would die, with no other option than the recycle bin.  How arrogant was that decision from Apple? And they got away with it.  Now the iPhone 3G has a miserable battery life, and they still sell them because they're cute...

Glynor, you're right, I did generalize about Apple's overall philosophy, and I agree that my rant has more to do with the iPhone.  That said, Apple has made some marvelous errors recently on the desktop.  One example is the Visual Effects business.   They were eating the competition with Shake and they strangled it - everybody is now switching to Nuke.  New jobs are even asking people to make the move to Nuke.  Checkout the forums to understand what happened exactly...That's just one example, maybe I'd need more to prove my point.

What surprises me in this day and age is why hasn't anyone started a hardware open-source project to create the ideal portable platform.  Checkout Wikipedia for Hardware Open Source.  Where are the people fighting back closed-minded technology in the hardware department?  We've done marvelously good in the software area - now is the time to move up to concrete stuff

Probably off-topic by now, sorry

Cheers
Melkiades

[bwaldron]

Hmm, Apple's hardware is likable esthetically, but there are obvious flaws hardware-like.

Oh, definitely they're not perfect...but what device is?

I've replaced my Nano with a Sansa Clip which I like very much. If there was another 160GB player that would work with MC, I'd replace my Classic as well...and be done with Apple.

[BartMan01]

...The original iPod and subsequent models' batteries is the most unbelievable example: the battery couldn't be changed.  After x amount of recharges, it would die, with no other option than the recycle bin...

While I understand the sentiment, this is not an accurate statement.  The iPod is not designed with a USER replaceable battery, but it IS replaceable.  This is a stupid decision that does not seem to jibe with their new 'eco-friendly' statements, but you do have two options that don't include tossing the old iPod:

Option one - replace the battery yourself.  I have done this on my iPod Photo.  It is a pain to do but possible.
Option two - send the device to Apple or a third party to have the battery replaced.  When my battery finally dies on my iPod touch or my wife's iPhone I will do this unless I am ready to replace the device.

[glynor]

What surprises me in this day and age is why hasn't anyone started a hardware open-source project to create the ideal portable platform. 

Because there is no money in it.

To build software, you can do it in spare time in your garage, and manufacturing is effectively free (distribution via the Internet).  Hardware isn't the same.  You have to build assembly lines, buy machines, and pay workers.  Design has to be taped out and tested.  You need clean rooms and massive testing infrastructure.  Teams of highly-paid and highly-motivated engineers that are among the most brilliant in the world (not to mention the intense hardware and software needed to create a next-generation chipset and platform).  IBM created (albeit, by accident) the "by-default" open Intel/PC platform, and it didn't exactly work out that well for them.  You spend all the R&D money developing the platform and then effectively "beg" outsiders to swoop in with no initial investment and snap up the design for free and you recoup nothing?

Not. Gonna. Happen.

[Lasse_Lus]

Because there is no money in it.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

is openmoko wrong answer ?

[glynor]

We'll see.  OpenMoko may survive in GPS handhelds (like the Dash), but will they really ever make any kind of market penetration in the smartphone market?

Maybe on the software side, but I'd be shocked if they succeed on the hardware side (and I'd put my money on Android way before OpenMoko Linux).

The phones actually released so far have certainly been quite far from "cutting edge".

[melkiades]

Thank you Bwaldron, BartMan01 and Glynor, great replies, very informative.

Glynor, I'm probably a bit off-topic but your post made me think about this...did you know that they recently discovered that Pyramids weren't built by slaves?  The people who worked those wonders were actually paid, and took great pride in their work.  So even 7,000 years ago, you had to pay people to get things done, or enslave them.  Working for free on hardware, like you say, will probably never happen.  Unless it's funded by a massive internet community.  Seeing that we're at the prehistoric age of computers and Precambrian age of the Internet, I retract: that scenario is still possible

Because there is no money in it.

To build software, you can do it in spare time in your garage, and manufacturing is effectively free (distribution via the Internet).  Hardware isn't the same.  You have to build assembly lines, buy machines, and pay workers.  Design has to be taped out and tested.  You need clean rooms and massive testing infrastructure.  Teams of highly-paid and highly-motivated engineers that are among the most brilliant in the world (not to mention the intense hardware and software needed to create a next-generation chipset and platform).  IBM created (albeit, by accident) the "by-default" open Intel/PC platform, and it didn't exactly work out that well for them.  You spend all the R&D money developing the platform and then effectively "beg" outsiders to swoop in with no initial investment and snap up the design for free and you recoup nothing?

Not. Gonna. Happen.