Great for gaming
An immediate consumer application for this would be in gaming. This is a potential cure for those frustrating moments in COD4 or Madden where the other player see what you are about to do.
4 posts • joined 21 Feb 2008
Whatever any company decides to do also determines what it can and cannot do. In this case, Apple simply chose a different approach than the existing approaches by Linux/MS/Symbian.
It is obvious that for any decision there are tradeoffs, but most of the commentators seem to start from the position that Apple should have been able to create a foolproof-satisfy-everyone-perfect solution.
so come on guys, it's not that black and white! You pick your poison, and if that means sticking with the "joy" that is Windows mobile... then good on you.
A lot of the posts here are (obviously and understandably) from the developer angle. But think of it from the consumer's point of view:
1. The $99 fee ensures that only developers that have at least some degree of ambition and seriousness will bother. Less hacks producing shaite. I say that's a good thing.
2. Apple approves each application. For the consumer, this ensures decent quality and eliminates unwanted surprises. How exactly is this a bad thing?
Someone please explain why Apple's approach is shaite, coz I must be missing something.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot think of a single communication technology that failed due to privacy concerns.
Sure, a small number of people will be concerned about the privacy issues on Facebook, but I would argue - as have some others here - that the biggest reason behind the fall in users... err, bitches... is that once you've established contact with your friends, there really isn't much useful to do on the site.
There is obviously some form of need for social networking, but Facebook doesn't seem to be the final answer. Not even close.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019