Palm OS on an iPhone - there's an app for that Palm OS obsessives StyleTap have created an iPhone emulator, but you'll have to give Cydia $50 and jailbreak your handset to run it. The legions of iPhone users desperate to run their Palm OS apps can finally relax, because StyleTap can now deliver all that Palm OS goodness to an iPhone. Users might even be able to run that NS …
Oh dear, yet another "Apple-wants-to-control-the-universe" article. If Apple was trying to be all things to all people, I might be inclined to agree with you. But the simple fact is, Apple has focussed all their attention on a particular market sector, and all the constraints and rules applied to the iPhone are designed to maintain that focus. It's a sensible, business principle - know your market and work to fill the needs of that market.
They are *not* making any attempt to appeal to people who want to delve into the bowels of the phone, to tweak and twiddle with settings and applications as they please. So why do you run around after Apple bleating, "they are trying to control us?" They aren't making any effort to sell an iPhone to you. Find another phone supplier that appeals to techies and hack away to your heart's content. It seems to me that the control-freaks are the ones writing articles saying "Apple should do this" and "Apple shouldn't say that".
Nowhere in this article does the author say that Apple should or shouldn't do anything. He's merely pointed out the existence of an alternative application available through alternative means.
Now, if what you claim is entirely correct: that Apple has marketed solely to those who wish to run Apple-approved apps obtained through Apple-approved means, and that their market consists entirely of those individuals, then the mere existence of these alternative channels is a conundrum. If nobody wants them, they shouldn't be there. The fact that people are not only making these channels, but making money off them -- and that Apple hasn't made any real effort to shut them down -- belies your perception of Apple's market and of their business model.
In fact, Apple is making every attempt to appeal to anyone who will pay them money for their product, and then doing what it can to ensure that those who've paid for it still have to pay them more for customization, etc. -- being careful not to ruin the income they still get from those who like to "hack". THAT's standard business practice in today's technology market. The only reason they aren't going harder after jailbreakers and the like is because that would eliminate their customers in that segment -- customers that, according to your view, they don't want.
Finally, if you haven't realized yet, the Register holds all tech companies in disdain. It's part of their business model to write their articles with a somewhat tongue-in-cheek dig at whatever major company happens to be related to the actual story. It provides a good deal of fun, often in the form of raging comments from readers who just don't get it. Thanks, by the way.
@Steven Knox: "Now, if what you claim is entirely correct: that Apple has marketed solely to those who wish to run Apple-approved apps obtained through Apple-approved means..."
What I said is that it is good business practice to "know your market and work to fill the needs of that market". Aiming for a target market of "people who want to buy things from us" is like trying to pull yourself up by your shoelaces - no matter how hard you try, you won't get anywhere. But Apple's customer-base has grown dramatically. Many iPhone users would never have previously considered buying anything from Apple - but Apple have thought hard about what their target market might want from a phone and delivered a product that has met that goal.
End-users - including myself - couldn't care less who the device or software comes from. It just needs to be easy to understand, consistently provide useful services, and require a minimum of know-how and effort to maintain. Many of the excluded apps would undermine that environment, particularly those that support hacking (witness how jailbroken phones have been the target of malware). The rules Apple have imposed are not designed to control users, but to protect the environment their customers bought into.
I appreciate The Register's humour - that's partly why I read it. I thought the jokes about Apple's control-freakery were funny too, but 50 articles later it started to get stale. It's degenerating into cliche now, e.g.:
"once they've stepped outside of Apple's control"
...and:
"Apple's rules clearly don't allow emulators, which [] threaten the [] iTunes monopoly"
If it was a good argument, I'd say stick with it. But for humour...? Can we find something new to laugh at Apple about? Please?
Fortunately there are good alternatives to the iPhone for those who want to hack or deploy odd applications outside of the Jobsian vision for the smartphone. Despite the whinging from (*cough*) certain tech writers, Google actually does seem to be perfectly happy for me to use my Android phone the way I want.; and I'm sure that Maemo/Moblin/MeeGo users say the same thing.
It's not hard to think of a way to charge for web apps: just add a login. Porn sites have done that for years after all. Safari on the iPhone could easily have a few extra JavaScript bits added which would allow much more useful web-apps (the ability to turn off the chrome [and have it work - the current method doesn't properly] would be nice).
Of course, that doesn't help here but since most of the porn, RSS, info apps and such should have been web based anyway it would have helped there.
Everything is moving towards Android, and the much more open Android marketplace. You can download APK files from anywhere (including of course the marketplace) and install them directly on your phone.
You can even write your own apps and install your own aps on your own phone...
By this time next year, I predict the phone market will look like this:
1/ Android
2/ Symbian
3/ Apple
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
