[NTLK] OT: was C64 on app store? now Is IBM evil?

[James Fraser]

Hello,

--- On Wed, 9/22/10, Tony Douglas <tonyisyourpal at netscape.net> wrote:

> And to me, this is where the Apple/IBM comparisons
> come in. Apple, for whatever reason (some say good because
> Apple wants to provide a consistently excellent all round
> user experience, some say bad because Apple wants to run
> your whole world for their profit) are headed down that
> route where they control the hardware you can use, the
> operating system you can use, and increasingly the
> applications you can use on top of it - in pretty much the
> same way IBM used to run your mainframe world top to bottom.


Just so.  It's fascinating how things seem close to coming full circle. Believe it or not, the below is from Steve Job's 1983 Apple keynote speech:

>It is now 1984. It appears IBM wants it all. Apple is perceived to be the >only hope to offer IBM a run for its money. Dealers initially welcoming >IBM with open arms now fear an IBM-dominated and -controlled future. They >are increasingly turning back to Apple as the only force that can ensure >their future freedom. IBM wants it all and is aiming its guns on its last >obstacle to industry control: Apple. Will Big Blue dominate the entire >computer industry? The entire information age? Was George Orwell right?

A quarter-century later, it appears as though Apple is the one most anxious to prove George Orwell was right. :/

I wonder if Steve Jobs really *did* hate Big Blue when he said the above because he perceived them as being dominating and controlling?  Or did he hate IBM simply because it was IBM, rather than Apple, that was doing the dominating and controlling, and he had to bide his time by finger-pointing whilst he was busy manuevering Apple into the dominant position?  

It's a question that interests me because it's quite easy to become the thing you hate if you're not careful.  That could explain the apparent 180-degree turnaround in Mr. Jobs' outlook regarding dominating and controlling things (assuming the actual case is the former rather than the latter).

Anyway, I'm looking forward to finding out with the release of 10.7.  We'll see if 10.7 is going to be about Apple "ensuring our future freedom," or if we're in for something that bears a closer resemblance to a round of iOS-style "Mother may I?" ¬_¬

> Some folks (who want things to "just work") will probably rub along quite > happily with that. 

Right.  I can (somewhat) understand where Apple is coming from regarding controlling the user experience.  All the same, no one knows better what an end user wants, exactly, then the end user.  I found this statement from Apple (from shortly after the EFF copyright victory) somewhat baffling:

>In a statement, Apple said, “Apple’s goal has always been to insure that >our customers have a great experience with their iPhone and we know that >jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience."

Well, I suppose it can, potentially.  However, does Apple -really believe- that people jailbreak their phones with the goal of -degrading-, rather than enhancing, their user experience?

I'm torn between believing that statement is a typical corporate con job and wondering, in all sincerity, if the Apple folks have started drinking their own Kool-Aid and they really -do- believe this.  I just don't know.

>Those who prefer to choose more for themselves are going to get pretty >tired pretty quickly of bumping into Apple's rules and regulations, and if >Apple aren't careful they may well reap the same kind of whirlwind IBM did >in the early 90s.

I love this quote from Kevin McCarthy:

"Walled Gardens are beautiful, until you want to play Frisbee or rearrange the lawn furniture. Then you risk running afoul of the Groundskeepers."

I'll admit it might not be every day that you want to play Frisbee or start messing with lawn furniture, but it's nice to have the option available for then the mood -does- take you.

In a way, I almost wish Apple would take a page out of IBM's old playbook and lease, rather than sell, their iDevices.  I say this because perhaps Apple doing so might help set user expectations more appropriately as far as what end users can and can't do with "their" device (at least as far as Apple is concerned).  

Right now, it seems to me as though Apple -sells- people a device, and then treats their end users as though, for all intents and purposes, they're simply leasing it.  Admittedly, there may be a nuance there that I'm overlooking. 


Best,

James Fraser