Comments on: iPhone apps: half-empty or half-full? http://futureoftheinternet.org/iphone-apps-half-empty-or-half-full Jonathan Zittrain is the Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation at Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford University, and co-founder of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:51:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Bertil Hatt http://futureoftheinternet.org/iphone-apps-half-empty-or-half-full/comment-page-1#comment-256 Bertil Hatt Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:44:29 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=42#comment-256 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'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's testimonial. This leave plenty of buzz heating-up to great any similar open platform. 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’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’s testimonial. This leave plenty of buzz heating-up to great any similar open platform.

]]> By: Bertil Hatt http://futureoftheinternet.org/iphone-apps-half-empty-or-half-full/comment-page-1#comment-255 Bertil Hatt Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:25:12 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=42#comment-255 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'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't the typical, ideal App? Are there any influential competitors to Box Office? Why couldn'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'm biased in thinking that corporate decisions tend to have a seemingly rational element within them. . . but isn't that strange? Maybe Steve Jobs is unhappy that Wall-E hasn't got a better mark then ‘Bigger, Faster, Stonger’? (Personally, I'm sure that's plain wrong: haven't seen the documentary, but I just can'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'm not so keen that King Steve's fits prevent me from finding when and where to watch Wall-E for the third time. 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’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’t the typical, ideal App?

Are there any influential competitors to Box Office? Why couldn’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’m biased in thinking that corporate decisions tend to have a seemingly rational element within them. . . but isn’t that strange?

Maybe Steve Jobs is unhappy that Wall-E hasn’t got a better mark then ‘Bigger, Faster, Stonger’? (Personally, I’m sure that’s plain wrong: haven’t seen the documentary, but I just can’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’m not so keen that King Steve’s fits prevent me from finding when and where to watch Wall-E for the third time.

]]>