1- Apple you S.O.B's, why won't you let me do as I wish with my phone
2- Apple, this is your product and I understand that you have the absolute right to do with it as you wish.
I actually find myself in both camps.
Sometimes I wish Apple would let go and treat this like selling Windows or OSX: They provide the OS and let others integrate apps as deep and wide as they wish. Yes, this would mean things like providing developers full access to all resources as opposed to the restrictions we work under today.
On the other hand, I also find myself in a position from which I respect the quality and stability the platform has offered since day one. It's almost like this is a benevolent totalitarian regime.
Until iOS 6 and Maps.
What I see now is a company that might not be making the right decisions for it's customers and users. You could argue this has happened with OSX as well. By releasing a substandard Maps application Apple has proven that it is now willing to make decisions that do not include quality, stability and the users' best interest in the process. I cannot, in any way, imagine that this would have been approved by Steve Jobs. Maybe I think too much of the man, but I don't think I am wrong.
Apple cannot make all the right decisions for this platform. No company can. Not in the long run. At one point you have to let go and allow others to help evolve the platform in ways a single company could not possibly imagine. Not doing so has the potential to tilt the scales and have users eventually vote with their purchases and move to other platforms.
This is exactly my issue with Apple. Once you've handed over all control to a benevolent dictator you're powerless if that dictator becomes less benevolent or competent in the future.
Until Apple allows opt-in sideloading of apps I'm done with iOS.
Except for the fact that Apple has NEVER been benevolent. My first brush with Apple was choosing to buy a Creative mp3 player (despite literally everyone I know having an iPod as their player) because of the absolutely ridiculous restrictions that Apple put on copying files from the device to a computer. This wasn't a "hacker" problem that "typical" users didn't face; I've lost count of the number of people who asked me how to do exactly that with their iPods over the following few years.
I've always been baffled at the characterization of Apple as focused on the user; user satisfaction has always seemed like a side effect of their main goal, which is profitability. Obviously in the ideal case, these two goals should be one and the same, but it's pretty obvious that very, very often, they are not. There are always things a company can do to help their market position that hurt their users, and Apple is practically a pioneer in coming up with and implementing them.
1- Apple you S.O.B's, why won't you let me do as I wish with my phone
2- Apple, this is your product and I understand that you have the absolute right to do with it as you wish.
I actually find myself in both camps.
Sometimes I wish Apple would let go and treat this like selling Windows or OSX: They provide the OS and let others integrate apps as deep and wide as they wish. Yes, this would mean things like providing developers full access to all resources as opposed to the restrictions we work under today.
On the other hand, I also find myself in a position from which I respect the quality and stability the platform has offered since day one. It's almost like this is a benevolent totalitarian regime.
Until iOS 6 and Maps.
What I see now is a company that might not be making the right decisions for it's customers and users. You could argue this has happened with OSX as well. By releasing a substandard Maps application Apple has proven that it is now willing to make decisions that do not include quality, stability and the users' best interest in the process. I cannot, in any way, imagine that this would have been approved by Steve Jobs. Maybe I think too much of the man, but I don't think I am wrong.
Apple cannot make all the right decisions for this platform. No company can. Not in the long run. At one point you have to let go and allow others to help evolve the platform in ways a single company could not possibly imagine. Not doing so has the potential to tilt the scales and have users eventually vote with their purchases and move to other platforms.