Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 22:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 496015
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
A bit, sure, but a lot ?
Billing with a typical app store : Click buy, enter password, payment done.
Billing with paypal : Click buy, check that you are actually on paypal and that the bill is correct, enter password, payment done.
The extra visual scan is pretty quick.
What I agree is more uncertain is what happens after payment, the part which does not depend on Paypal themselves. Some vendors redirect you to a download link, some vendors send you an e-mail, some vendors manually check incoming orders... This would benefit from a bit of uniformization. But nothing there which user experience guidelines and vendor-provided software distribution tools couldn't fix.
What do you mean by that ? If I see a nice RSS reader on the Mac App Store, download it, run it, and it turns out that it's actually a basic program which displays a silly picture of a cat with subtext "you got owned !", what is the difference ?
It is a given that purchases are simpler, what I'm wondering about is if it's worth the cost of putting a single entity in control of anything a computer may run.
When I see Apple banning the Wikileaks app from un-jailbroken iOS, Google forcefully removing apps from users' devices from a distance, or Apple remotely bricking iPhone prototypes... I believe that the amount of control which we let others have on cellphones is scary. Current mobile OSs are an evil dictator's dream toy, is that really the future we want on every computer in the long run ?
I think that Apple may be biased about which software they choose to allow on their platform even if they do not write competing software.
As an example, non-tech users' vision of hardware is affected by the software that runs on it. So if some iPhones or Mac are known to run questionable software, it may affect people's decision to buy or not buy this hardware. Therefore, Apple may be tempted to allow or disallow the existence of some software on their platform, depending on what they believe will maximize sales. And I guess this is what they do when they play morality guardians and ban stuff that contains nudity or illegal material on their own free will.
I don't think this is a sane behavior. It is fine for an OS vendor to advice for and against specific software, but not to ban stuff altogether from people's sight as happens of iOS and may happen on Mac OS at some point. For a flawed real-world analogy, I would understand that my favorite book shop does not have a book I like on its shelves, but if the owner refused taking orders of books she doesn't like, I'd find another book shop.
Maybe others would disagree with that though.
You can always consult the CD-ROMs of magazines for apps which display prehistoric women with breasts… Oh wait. :-)
Well, wasn't the point of these magazine apps to introduce on-device content that is updated from the web on the fly instead of going through this kind of bulky procedures ?