|
Post by portistaal on Oct 26, 2010 9:02:08 GMT -5
So this morning I logged onto this site from my iPhone. The site says "do you want to download the iPhone App".
I click OK; only to find out it's $2.99; Really? Now the debate is whether the app is worth 3 bucks to me.
I'll wait a little while to make sure this really becomes our new home.
|
|
dae
Youth Player
Posts: 50
|
Post by dae on Oct 26, 2010 10:32:40 GMT -5
I saw that too. Not sure if it is worth it either
|
|
reza
Youth Player
Posts: 51
|
Post by reza on Oct 26, 2010 10:49:19 GMT -5
Do you guys mean this? I have never used an iPhone. www.proboards.com/iphoneTo me this is just another proof iPhones suck. A site either renders well on a phone or it doesn't, it either works or not. There should be no middle ground allowable by either Apple or whoever else.
|
|
|
Post by portistaal on Oct 26, 2010 10:53:55 GMT -5
Do you guys mean this? I have never used an iPhone. www.proboards.com/iphoneTo me this is just another proof iPhones suck. A site either renders well on a phone or it doesn't, it either works or not. There should be no middle ground allowable by either Apple or whoever else. Yes; it renders perfectly fine, everything works. It's just that the App actually looks like it works better and smoother than the actual website on a real computer... LOL the Internet is truely changing to a App based environment. HTML just can't keep up with what people want to do. facebook app for iPhone is more productive and intuitive than their HTML site. good example is the number of TVs coming out with App software instead of including web browsers.
|
|
reza
Youth Player
Posts: 51
|
Post by reza on Oct 26, 2010 11:06:32 GMT -5
I get what you mean about working better and what apps can do. What I don't like - and Apple is at the forefront of enabling this - is restricting access to web.
'Pay to get a better version of our site' is downright evil in my opinion. Not to mention that in this case the 'our' is iffy at best.
|
|
|
Post by portistaal on Oct 26, 2010 12:32:19 GMT -5
I get what you mean about working better and what apps can do. What I don't like - and Apple is at the forefront of enabling this - is restricting access to web. 'Pay to get a better version of our site' is downright evil in my opinion. Not to mention that in this case the 'our' is iffy at best. Can't blame Apple for finding a way to solve the internet's biggest problem for the past 10 years. How to get people to pay for content. Make it easy to find and pretty and charge very small amounts. Started with music, 99 cents a song, then TV shows, then web apps, games, etc. Now they are moving to print contect (books, newspapers, magazines, etc) The provider has the choice whether to charge for the app or not (adding advertisement). Death by 1,000 paper cuts and it's working very well. Something no one else has been able to figure out. They want all the revenue in one cut up front.
|
|
|
Post by pila on Oct 26, 2010 12:47:06 GMT -5
Do you guys mean this? I have never used an iPhone. www.proboards.com/iphoneTo me this is just another proof iPhones suck. A site either renders well on a phone or it doesn't, it either works or not. There should be no middle ground allowable by either Apple or whoever else. Yes; it renders perfectly fine, everything works. It's just that the App actually looks like it works better and smoother than the actual website on a real computer... LOL the Internet is truely changing to a App based environment. HTML just can't keep up with what people want to do. facebook app for iPhone is more productive and intuitive than their HTML site. good example is the number of TVs coming out with App software instead of including web browsers. I disagree with the Facebook App for the iPhone. It has many flaws, like it doesn't give you the option to edit or delete your posts. For someone as anally retentive as yours truly, I'm forced to go to the full version to correct my flawed spelling.
|
|
|
Post by portistaal on Oct 26, 2010 13:09:13 GMT -5
I still prefer using it better than their site... even with the flaws, defintely overdue for a new version.
I even use AIM for the iPad to see facebook over the actual facebook site.
|
|
reza
Youth Player
Posts: 51
|
Post by reza on Oct 26, 2010 13:33:37 GMT -5
Can't blame Apple for finding a way to solve the internet's biggest problem for the past 10 years. How to get people to pay for content. Make it easy to find and pretty and charge very small amounts. Started with music, 99 cents a song, then TV shows, then web apps, games, etc. Now they are moving to print contect (books, newspapers, magazines, etc) The provider has the choice whether to charge for the app or not (adding advertisement). Death by 1,000 paper cuts and it's working very well. Something no one else has been able to figure out. They want all the revenue in one cut up front. Are you implying that Apple has brought down the price of anything? ;D Songs for 99 cents wasn't an Apple thing it was allowed by the record companies after the Napster fiasco. If record companies didn't decide on song by song sales not even Walmart or Exxon (biggest companies) could force them. Charging for stuff, TV shows and the like, that are initially available for free or 'free' (PVR etc.) is a masterstroke of marketing, nothing else. I don't think this is a free market issue, of course anybody can charge for their content or put ads or both. I am not saying all content must be free. A good example...I am always baffled when people make of fun of a newspaper for charging an online subscription. What gets to me is charging for enhancements...you can visit this site fine on Internet Explorer but a mobile browser sorry 3 bucks.
|
|
dae
Youth Player
Posts: 50
|
Post by dae on Oct 26, 2010 13:58:53 GMT -5
Didn't Microsoft do something similar and get nailed for it when it was claimed that they were essentially creating a monopoly because everything essentially ran through Windows?
|
|
|
Post by portistaal on Oct 26, 2010 14:30:57 GMT -5
Are you implying that Apple has brought down the price of anything? ;D Songs for 99 cents wasn't an Apple thing it was allowed by the record companies after the Napster fiasco. If record companies didn't decide on song by song sales not even Walmart or Exxon (biggest companies) could force them. Charging for stuff, TV shows and the like, that are initially available for free or 'free' (PVR etc.) is a masterstroke of marketing, nothing else. Yes; Apple started the 99 cent market. news.cnet.com/2100-1027-998590.html"We were able to negotiate landmark deals with all of the major labels," Jobs said of the company's newly launched iTunes Music Store. "There is no legal alternative that's worth beans."
The songs cost 99 cents each to download, with no subscription fee, and include the most liberal copying rights of any online service to date. Jobs has been an outspoken opponent of so-called digital rights management (DRM) in the past, arguing that limitations on digital music will undermine the market for legitimate content. I'm not saying that lowered the cost; just saying that breaking it into individual peices got people to pay for it; "oh, 99 cents, that's not bad". That and the lawsuits that followed. There are couple of reasons to pay for shows: 1. You forget to DVR something 2. You opt to kill cable and go a-la-cart; opting to only pay for the shows you want to watch. TV companies looked at what happened with Music and jumped on the wagon really fast. Or else people would be finding and sharing pirated shows all over the place. Remember, not all tv is free; only those over the air are free. There is only a small portion of TV that you can actually get for free. On my over the air antena there are probably 6 channels worth watching. (CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, UPN, CW) The argument you are making is similar to asking why pay for cable when I can get tv over the air for free. You pay for cable to have better access (clear picture) and more content.
|
|
|
Post by portistaal on Oct 26, 2010 14:33:41 GMT -5
Didn't Microsoft do something similar and get nailed for it when it was claimed that they were essentially creating a monopoly because everything essentially ran through Windows? Microsoft got nailed for pre-installing Microsoft software and making parts of Windows only compatible with their software. For example, they pre-installed Internet explorer and made it the default, then made it nearly impossible to be able to change that default setting.
|
|
reza
Youth Player
Posts: 51
|
Post by reza on Oct 26, 2010 16:32:13 GMT -5
Cable as a technology is valid but as a marketing thing it's like anything else. You have to look at it in another way, not just clearer picture and more content. For example packages with a number of channels being forced at a minimum are the problem in the cable's case.
--
I know Apple were the first but with the blessing of the copyright holders.
By the way...
"the most liberal copying rights of any online service to date"
This is false. I know the article you quoted is old but nevertheless plenty of sites dating back many years that sell pure mp3s for $1.29 or 99cents.
--
Apple has been closed forever, much more than Windows by a long shot. Others are not even allowed to make compatible computers never mind loading software into them. It's a myth that Mac isn't doing the same or worse. Macs come loaded with iSomething and Safari. Not to mention how they control their app store. What you could argue against Microsoft is how they dealt with smaller competitors, like Corel and others, from their position of power.
|
|
|
Post by portistaal on Oct 26, 2010 16:53:31 GMT -5
Apple was actually the first company to offer the songs without DRM software. At first at a premium and later at the same price without it. The DRM was always driven by the labels. If you were buying non DRM songs in the past it must have been from smaller labels.
I actually buy my music from amazon now, the songs are cheaper, also DRM free and they load automatically to iTunes.
Microsoft had it's own DRM, you had to buy MP3 players that had the windows media certification sticker. This is the DRM Napster used. Realtime also had their own. Do they even exist anymore?
Apple almost went out of business when they licensed their OS to third party hardware developers, the quality was garbage and it really hurt the brand (the 90s). Took 10 years to recover from that.
Funny that this argument is only made with computers. Why doesn't Microsoft let you run The Xbox OS on the playstation? Why doesn't TiVo let you run their software on your computer? Why doesn't BMW let you run their navigation software in your Audi?
Apple custom built their OS for their hardware, its their choice to license it or not. They allow you to install windows or linux, how much more open you would want them to get.
I for one appreciate them certifying applications, they ensure there is no spyware or malware on my iPhone or iPad. If I want to run a browser other than Safari, I can just download it. Any substitute app I want is available. And i have tried them and keep going back to the Apple apps. And if they don't approve an app in the app store. I can still run it as a web app from a web server. Simple as that.
|
|
reza
Youth Player
Posts: 51
|
Post by reza on Oct 26, 2010 17:29:46 GMT -5
I think that at the end of the day Microsoft didn't push a iTunes to you, that's the kind of hold I don't want, even if iTunes lets you do anything with the song, which it didn't. I bought single songs MP3s legally when it was not in fashion to buy legally and it didn't come from Apple. Yes Window Media Player did try to to be sneaky at one point but it's not anymore and it never made itself the gateway to the song purchase any way like buying songs through iTunes.
Certifying apps is not a problem if it were only for things like security but it is way more than that. Refusing Google voice, refusing porn, etc.
|
|