<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: iPhone apps: half-empty or half-full?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://futureoftheinternet.org/iphone-apps-half-empty-or-half-full/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://futureoftheinternet.org/iphone-apps-half-empty-or-half-full</link>
	<description>Jonathan Zittrain is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:25:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bertil Hatt</title>
		<link>http://futureoftheinternet.org/iphone-apps-half-empty-or-half-full/comment-page-1#comment-256</link>
		<dc:creator>Bertil Hatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:44:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=42#comment-256</guid>
		<description>A few comments in the truck load of blog-posts regarding that issue have mentioned that an earlier version of the App was crash-prone. Pulling the update is the exact wrong thing to do to resolve that — but I&#039;d understand a snafu between an agile programmer that amends bugs in the same time-frame as a big corporation decides to pull it off preventively, and drafts without sending it an explanation that has to go through both the code-geeks and the legalize-translation. 

Good news is the fuss: Apple is very stubborn, but users seem to be ready to argue loudly, based on a coder&#039;s testimonial. This leave plenty of buzz heating-up to great any similar open platform.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A few comments in the truck load of blog-posts regarding that issue have mentioned that an earlier version of the App was crash-prone. Pulling the update is the exact wrong thing to do to resolve that — but I&#8217;d understand a snafu between an agile programmer that amends bugs in the same time-frame as a big corporation decides to pull it off preventively, and drafts without sending it an explanation that has to go through both the code-geeks and the legalize-translation. </p>
<p>Good news is the fuss: Apple is very stubborn, but users seem to be ready to argue loudly, based on a coder&#8217;s testimonial. This leave plenty of buzz heating-up to great any similar open platform.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bertil Hatt</title>
		<link>http://futureoftheinternet.org/iphone-apps-half-empty-or-half-full/comment-page-1#comment-255</link>
		<dc:creator>Bertil Hatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:25:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=42#comment-255</guid>
		<description>Glad to see that a definitely generative idea can influence the market to become so, even behind a highly-walled garden — and my iron-clad self-esteem is glad Apple will soon have lower-quality competitors to despise, so that will still be better, and not just the only option that makes sense. ;o)

I&#039;m really puzzled: I could understand the NetSahring thing, at least as a prt of the interference with the provider (my own, non-iPhone contract, has the same moral agreement no to use bluetooth, most likely not enforced by anything more then a consumption threshold); however, I cannot compute the Rotten Tomato thing: How come this isn&#039;t the typical, ideal App?

Are there any influential competitors to Box Office? Why couldn&#039;t they simply get they thing together, and rapidly throw their HTML and some noodles in a brawl to make a decent, bare-bone competitor? Could it be Movie theaters patrons that are unhappy with people checking out another film from within the room? No way. . .

I know I&#039;m biased in thinking that corporate decisions tend to have a seemingly rational element within them. . . but isn&#039;t that strange?

Maybe Steve Jobs is unhappy that Wall-E hasn&#039;t got a better mark then ‘Bigger, Faster, Stonger’? (Personally, I&#039;m sure that&#039;s plain wrong: haven&#039;t seen the documentary, but I just can&#039;t understand how looking at bodybuilders for almost two hours get any close to Pixar greatness — a glitch, or a fake screen, obviously.) Is that enough to pull the plug? Then, Hell yeah, controlled-platform are a massive problem: I&#039;m not so keen that King Steve&#039;s fits prevent me from finding when and where to watch Wall-E for the third time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad to see that a definitely generative idea can influence the market to become so, even behind a highly-walled garden — and my iron-clad self-esteem is glad Apple will soon have lower-quality competitors to despise, so that will still be better, and not just the only option that makes sense. ;o)</p>
<p>I&#8217;m really puzzled: I could understand the NetSahring thing, at least as a prt of the interference with the provider (my own, non-iPhone contract, has the same moral agreement no to use bluetooth, most likely not enforced by anything more then a consumption threshold); however, I cannot compute the Rotten Tomato thing: How come this isn&#8217;t the typical, ideal App?</p>
<p>Are there any influential competitors to Box Office? Why couldn&#8217;t they simply get they thing together, and rapidly throw their HTML and some noodles in a brawl to make a decent, bare-bone competitor? Could it be Movie theaters patrons that are unhappy with people checking out another film from within the room? No way. . .</p>
<p>I know I&#8217;m biased in thinking that corporate decisions tend to have a seemingly rational element within them. . . but isn&#8217;t that strange?</p>
<p>Maybe Steve Jobs is unhappy that Wall-E hasn&#8217;t got a better mark then ‘Bigger, Faster, Stonger’? (Personally, I&#8217;m sure that&#8217;s plain wrong: haven&#8217;t seen the documentary, but I just can&#8217;t understand how looking at bodybuilders for almost two hours get any close to Pixar greatness — a glitch, or a fake screen, obviously.) Is that enough to pull the plug? Then, Hell yeah, controlled-platform are a massive problem: I&#8217;m not so keen that King Steve&#8217;s fits prevent me from finding when and where to watch Wall-E for the third time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
