On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:54:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Of course Android has that same problem - Apple tightly controls their
>> platforms.  That can increase the quality of the products offered, but
>> at the same time, their dev agreement allegedly is one of the more
>> draconian agreements out there.
> 
>   There are, roughly speaking, two possible at making hardware that can
>   run
> software: Either make it completely open for anybody to use in any way
> they want, or keep it under tight control.
> 
>   The former method is more liked by developers and many users, but it
> inevitably causes efficiency and compatibility problems when random
> Chinese companies start spewing their cheap low-quality clones and
> flooding the market with them, not to talk about the low quality of the
> software, with little to no quality control, and which may or may not
> work properly with your particular brand of the hardware. While Android
> devices work acceptably well for the most part, they often suffer from
> this problem.
> 
>   The second method, used not only by Apple but also by most game
>   console
> manufacturers (especially the big ones, ie. Nintendo, Microsoft and
> Sony) ensures that the device *will* be "plug-and-play" (or, in this
> case, "install-program-and-play"). There will be no cheap low-quality
> clones, there will be no software with little or no quality control. If
> you buy the program, you will be able to run the program. No messing
> around, no tuning parameters, drivers and whatnot, just
> install-and-play, and it will just work. Most users appreciate this,
> even those who don't realize it themselves.

That's a fair point.

But it boils down to this - do you want an appliance, or do you want a 
general purpose computing device.

If you want an appliance, then Apple's the way to go.

I know plenty of Linux die-hards who have iPhones because they want their 
phone to be an appliance and not something they're likely to tinker with.

But one has to realise that classification and that the two aren't 
necessarily direct competitors to each other, because they fill different 
needs.

Jim

Post a reply to this message