Turpinot iepriekšējā rakstā sākto tēmu (un bezgalīgo diskusiju:)), lūk, visai garš, bet visai interesants raksts ar nosaukumu "Apple pret pasauli". Raksta to Macworld galvenais cilvēks Jason Snell.

Iesaku izlasīt gan tiem, kas lieto, gan tiem, kas nelieto Apple. Bet noteikti tiem, kas piedalījās diskusijā :)

Īsi fragmentiņi, kas aizskar visvairāk diskutētās lietas:

"Apple would rather be seen as a heavy-handed arbiter of app approvals than be seen as the purveyor of a product that runs bad stuff"

"If you haven’t noticed, Apple is not a company that is willing to lose even a tiny bit of control over its products. (It’s what infuriates many of the company’s critics, but it’s also what makes Apple and its products what they are. You can’t have one without the other.)"

"Apple’s distaste for Flash is real, and as Jobs reiterated Thursday via a one-word answer to a question on the topic, Apple has “no” plans to let it on the iPhone."

"Apple doesn’t want Flash-created apps on the App Store for a simple reason: It reduces the iPhone to a lowest-common denominator platform, and at that point Apple loses all control over the iPhone OS experience.

Once developers can create an app in one development environment—Adobe’s—and compile it to run on every smartphone known to humankind, many developers will decide to save themselves a boatload of money and stop developing native apps for the iPhone, Android, and other platforms. They’ll just develop once, for Flash, and let it run anywhere.

Sounds good, but the develop-once-run-anywhere philosophy is something that makes more sense to bean counters and development-environment vendors than it does to platform owners and discriminating users."

"Apple doesn’t want apps that don’t feel like native iPhone apps on the iPhone. It doesn’t want Adobe to aid developers in creating a world where App X for iPhone and App X for Android are indistinguishable from one another."

"Hysterical complaints about an ad-filled app apocalypse aside (lots of apps already have ads, thank you very much—and it’s the fault of every one of you who see a $3 app on the App Store and complain that it’s way too rich for your blood), what Apple’s trying to do is use the emergence of the App Store and the power of smartphone apps to rewrite the mobile advertising playbook the same way Google changed how advertising on the Web works."

"it’s absolutely appropriate for people to dislike specific strategic moves Apple makes. I don’t necessarily agree with all of them myself, but I think I understand why Apple is making them."

"Apple is neither a charity nor a public utility. It’s a profit-making corporation with a whole lot of shareholders and billions of dollars in the bank. Apple exists to make money. Yes, under the guidance of Steve Jobs, its mission is to change the world by making innovative and exquisitely designed technology products—but that mission ultimately serves the purpose of making money."

"a lot of the criticism of Apple’s strategic moves comes out of the sheer attraction people feel toward Apple’s products. People really, really want to use them—and when that desire comes into conflict with political agendas or desires or personal preference, the frustration generally gets lumped back on Apple.

The reality is, not only can Apple not please everyone, it’s not remotely interested in pleasing everyone. (This is the same reason why Apple doesn’t sell a $500 MacBook. It could make one, sure, and lots of people have said they want one. But the company doesn’t think it’s in its financial best interests to make such a product.)"