http://mathewingram.disqus.com/enThu, 07 Aug 2008 20:25:08 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/04/apple-to-iphone-users-no-app-for-you/#comment-1129080" It's not what you do,it's the way that you do it " is the phrase that comes to mind. Apple lacks good PR. They create criticism less by their actions that by not attempting to explain or justify them. It is their attitude which could cost them user loyalty. Mathew you could well be right.Maggy YoungThu, 07 Aug 2008 20:25:08 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/04/apple-to-iphone-users-no-app-for-you/#comment-1108445Hmmm... does anyone remember that Apple did not originally open the iPhone as a development platform - and that only Apple would be able to create the apps that would be used? When the craftier hackers unlocked and jail-broke the iPhone opening up the platform to world wide development and use - Apple shrugged and then true to form "opened" up the SDK and distribution channel. Both of which they could control - remember we're talking about Apple (Yes I'm a devote) and it has always been a "privilege" to buy, sell and develop on Apple gear. No body but Apple ever really profits here! Apple redid Napster with iTunes. Now they're redoing Pwnage etc and they alone will profit.timmitraTue, 05 Aug 2008 23:34:40 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/04/apple-to-iphone-users-no-app-for-you/#comment-1102788Users to Apple - You've been warned<br><br>"It’s entirely possible that others could experience a similar fate, regardless of how cool and universally loved their products might be."<br><br>You may get a backlash if you keep it up.pmplayersTue, 05 Aug 2008 12:45:48 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/04/apple-to-iphone-users-no-app-for-you/#comment-1102112I think you're right, Alistair. At the moment, Apple seems to be opting for the "vertically integrated" model, where it owns and controls the whole value chain from hardware to content. It certainly satisfies the company's legendary need for control, but I'm not sure it's the best way of generating longer term value for either Apple or its customers.mathewiTue, 05 Aug 2008 11:46:01 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/04/apple-to-iphone-users-no-app-for-you/#comment-1101736Nice piece, Matthew. Got me thinking: This boils down to whether Apple wants to retain control of its vertical stack (from hardware to content) and the revenue that comes with it, or open up that stack (at the risk of cannibalizing revenues and making the iPhone less elegant) and go after Microsoft's client dominance.<br><br>A.alistaircTue, 05 Aug 2008 11:08:43 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/04/apple-to-iphone-users-no-app-for-you/#comment-1101640As much as I like my new iPhone, Apple itself is annoying the hell out of me with their intrusive malware installs (I'm looking at you MobileMe and Safari for Windows!) and their general arrogance and non-transparent attitude towards their users.Ken SetoTue, 05 Aug 2008 11:00:43 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/04/apple-to-iphone-users-no-app-for-you/#comment-1098182here is another app they are teasing us with ( up down ) <a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/01/netshare-tethering-app-reappears-on-app-store/" rel="nofollow">http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/01/netshare-te...</a>AlistairTue, 05 Aug 2008 00:04:46 -0000http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/08/04/apple-to-iphone-users-no-app-for-you/#comment-1097922Apple went into this with the ITMS model. The wild card is (of course) that the apps in the App Store are *not* like song tracks. Each app is unique & has unbounded behavior. (i.e. a song can only be played, paused, etc. while an app has unbounded behavior, at least WRT what Apple knows about it).<br><br>This was a huge flaw in the roll-out. They are vetting & re-vetting apps *on the fly* as they learn more about the behavior (i.e. what are the bounds).<br><br>Kinda funny, kinda not....jbminnMon, 04 Aug 2008 23:25:40 -0000