Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Sep 2012 22:22 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 536027
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 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-03-27
Yes, but that is my ultimate point. I'm only arguing about the app store bit because ultimately I am trying to say something about the convergence of a model that became successful on smartphones (the iPhone originally) and that is now making its transition to PC's, which themselves are partly merging into/becoming tablets.
Of course. Totally agree with you. Rather, I'm saying that Apple's app store happened to be the first one to meet certain conditions, the key ones being that it was wildly successful and that it had apps for doing PC-ish work.
Agreed. Look, I'm not trying to suggest that Apple is somehow "innovative", I'm just saying that they happened to be first (again: not first to create an app store nor first to create an app store that requires money; but that they were the first to be so successful and include a wide variety of apps). I think the fact that payment is part of it is important in the sense that it helps grow the ecosystem and therefore enhances the appeal of the hardware platform, but if open source or "free as in beer" ecosystems were wildly popular then that would work just as fine.
Yes, I see that I should have been more specific in my original post. I thought it was implied when I wrote "successful implementation", but probably my vagueness is the root of the misunderstanding. My fault, my apologies.
Well, what percentage of the apps in the "massively successful" Apple app stores are actually robust and universally useful programs that get work done, instead of some stupid widget that makes farting noises, or the equivalent of someone's vanity fan web page, or some store's shopping application, or someone's shallow, generic app idea that they think will make them a quick fortune, etc.?
Well, I am not one of those fanboys and I am not making that argument. You seemed to be alluding to app numbers; my criterion is number of users, not even app quality.
...duh? When did I even imply that? I keep repeating: "Apple did not invent the app store!"
Now you have the exact definition that I am working with.
Obviously, number of downloads =/= number of users.
lolwhut?
Likewise with computer platforms. Even when specifying exact quantities, success is a subjective argument.
Not if you are defining it in a very limited sense for the purpose of making a specific argument. Subjective =/= relative.
Sorry, you seemed to be implying it since you were disagreeing with me and then tacked on a bunch of stuff about how fanboys act.