Many, including me, have argued that if the iPad ends up dominating the mobile computing market, then the App Store's current model of censorship is unacceptable. Right now, I can use a web browser on any computer to go get content any way I want. But what's to keep Steve Jobs from deciding that Safari will only load pages that have content he deems acceptable?
I found this argument worth considering though: while Steve is a control freak, he won't corner the market because he won't compromise. Specifically, he won't license his software to other hardware makers, or sacrifice operability for profitability.
The argument is that the iPad will go the way of the Mac, because someone else will build off of great ideas in the iPad and sell their competing product more cheaply, and eventually Steve will lose market share.
I'm not convinced that this is destiny. iPods are staying strong as the dominant mp3 player, despite lots of competition willing to add in "missing" features. On the other hand, while the iPhone is the standard, its market share is not a majority.
I'm more convinced by the argument that even if the App Store is censored, you have a web browser. Want to read incendiary political cartoons or see pictures of naked people? Google it. There may not be an app for that, but you can get there by Safari. So long as Apple's web browser stays open, the censorship complaint is a little hollow. Although Apple is blocking all Flash apps on the web, so there's that debate...
No comments:
Post a Comment