December 21, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Can Users Be Trusted?
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
December 22, 2009 at 4:05 am
I'm a optimist and believe that all people are good at the core and therefor, I trust users. (They where sweet innocent babies once upon a time. No sure what happens to them on the way to becoming adults.)
To trust or not to trust:
If your environment is maintained and secure, then you would have no problem trusting users.
If you do not trust users, it is because:
- you do not have a auditing enabled on your systems (to track the user that made the silly changes) and
- your security is not setup correctly (and you hope an pray that user do not realise this.)
Users that are also not correctly trained are also not to be trusted. (but it is not their fault if they have not been give training or some decent documentation and reference cards. User do not read technical documentation!)
I trust that which I control.
December 22, 2009 at 5:39 am
I completely disagree with the business model of having a sole place to get products for an operating system(iPhone, Windows or other). The reason for this is that product launch is completely out of your hands. As a developer, it may take a significant amount of hours to put together an application. Having the approval process completely up to one entity that requires the product to be finished or nearly finished for its review process means that you have already leveraged your time in terms of development costs. Now, reclaiming the cost of your development time is completely up to another company that doesn't have your company's best interests at heart. To me, that business model seems too propieatary and monopolistic for me and seems to run counter to the free market place we pride ourselves of having. It is for these reasons that I will never own an iPhone.
December 22, 2009 at 6:31 am
I see your point about the process that Apple uses for approval that would tend to stifle a lot of development. This may be one reason that Apple's market share is a small fraction of the market.
I think the system that has been set up fosters slow growth of high quality products.
Also, I believe Microsoft has tried something like the app store many years ago but failed. I do not know why it failed or what they ever did with it, but the Windows Gallery was supposed to be someplace to find applications and even hardware. It was listed on the Windows XP start menu.
December 22, 2009 at 6:39 am
The issue here is the headline should read "Can Large Corporations Be Trusted?", and then your answer about whether restrictive, single-source App Stores are good or bad would be obvious.
December 22, 2009 at 7:22 am
I'm not sure what the editorial has to do with trusting users. But I know a lot of people who don't trust Microsoft. I don't know why people trust Apple, but they don't trust Microsoft.
December 22, 2009 at 7:29 am
michael.wiles (12/22/2009)
... To me, that business model seems too propieatary and monopolistic for me and seems to run counter to the free market place we pride ourselves of having. It is for these reasons that I will never own an iPhone.
In principle, I agree that open markets are better than the alternative. But I think Steve correctly points out that there are a lot of positives that come from such an environment (stability, security). And the bottom line for app store developers is that solid, innovative products that fulfill some purpose will still sell. As evidence, I point to the excellent new apps that become available all the time.
I have an iPhone, and it works for me. It's very intuitive and it's been far more stable than the smartphone I carry for work.
December 22, 2009 at 8:03 am
I use an Android phone, and it's been a pleasure to use since the hour I got it. Plenty of apps available, some good, some not so good, some useful, some useless. That's the same for the iPhone.
I see both sides of the quality control issue. Single-source-of-approval can mean strict standards enforcement, which can be good for security. It can also be bad for creativity. Apple blocked one developer a while back because they disagreed with his politics. (His app included a caracature of Nanci Pelosi, along with just about every other congresscritter, and they took exception to his lampooning of someone they admire. The rejection made it clear that it was the caricature of Pelosi they disagreed with and blocked the app because of.)
At the same time, various Apple products have had severe security issues that have gone unaddressed for as much as years. So even their model doesn't go all that far on that issue.
As for trusting people who use any computer and who develop apps for them, I follow the old idea of trusting but playing it safe anyway.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 22, 2009 at 9:22 am
I probably should have retitled it. I was thinking that users can't necessarily be trusted not to put insecure apps on their device, though that's not really the point.
the single source App store is a problem in terms of being the gatekeeper. It does ensure a better level of quality of apps. I've had iPhone and Android apps and on average, the iPhone ones are better quality. they may not be more useful, but they're better quality.
However it isn't good that Apple is the only source. I like someone standing behind the app store, and I would be happy if some other corporation, say Intel, had an iPhone app store that was an alternative, but they still examined and "approved" the apps.
I know Microsoft and others have had "windows approved" apps, but since they're not being sold by Microsoft, they don't seem to get a great level of support or quality. Maybe that wouldn't change with an app store, or maybe it wouldn't work for larger, non-single purpose apps, but I think it has worked well for the iPhone.
As far as a SQL Server store, I don't know that I think there should be only applications sold from one source, but it would be nice if there were some higher level of quality required to get some apps sold through there.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
December 22, 2009 at 10:04 am
I appreciated the article and the comments.
I think most of us agree that quality is the main issue.
Apple's attempt at managing quality is a single-source app store - my guess is because this is the easiest way for them to achieve their desired level of quality. However, is Apple's level or definition of quality what the users can handle? I would say it's very close.
I have worked for many companies who employ people who range from the illiterate to PhD’s and that whole range of those users have one thing in common - people make mistakes.
In the manufacturing world there is a term - "Poka-yoke" - which is a Japanese term for mistake proofing. It's difficult to implement, but when done it works beautifully. Mistake proofing processes has been the only way to successfully implement quality on a large scale and it would be beneficial for all developers and companies to investigate this concept.
December 22, 2009 at 11:38 am
If quality is the only argument for a single source of applications, why can't there be a forum created specifically for rating, reviewing and ensuring quality of applications that all users have access to. Apps wouldn't have to be distributed through there, but you can link to whereever it is those apps are stored. It would kind of be like a wikipedia for mobile apps. This way, the user community is the ultimate judge and all apps have the potential to flourish without being squashed for politicial reasons or upholding legal agreements to ban certain app types based solely on business partnership arrangements, or ban an app just because they can.
December 22, 2009 at 11:39 am
The app store definitely brings with it a degree of trust though it can be trying on the developer side of things. That being said I thought it was pretty coincidental that this iPhone app editorial came up today as our app just went live today. If you either a) want to support a fellow DBA or b) have a maniacal desire to control the world (or even your block), take a peek at it here The interesting part about making the app is that we used a web back end that uses MySql and that has been a switch my usual part time SQL Server dba duties!
December 22, 2009 at 11:43 am
michael.wiles (12/22/2009)
If quality is the only argument for a single source of applications, why can't there be a forum created specifically for rating, reviewing and ensuring quality of applications that all users have access to. Apps wouldn't have to be distributed through there, but you can link to whereever it is those apps are stored. It would kind of be like a wikipedia for mobile apps. This way, the user community is the ultimate judge and all apps have the potential to flourish without being squashed for politicial reasons or upholding legal agreements to ban certain app types based solely on business partnership arrangements, or ban an app just because they can.
Have you ever checked out http://www.c-net.com?
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
December 22, 2009 at 11:51 am
I've used cnet for software for my personal computer. I've never looked there for mobile phone software. My main point was that there are ways to ensure quality without having a single propietary source from which the entire user community can judge the quality of an application rather than having that application never exposed in the first place.
December 22, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Steve,
Unix existed for almost 20 years in proprietary instances. It stifled innovation and went basically nowhere. I hate malware and crap-ware as much as the next person, but if Apple approves the apps, it is stifling innovation.
Most people, especially MS haters, do not realize that it was Microsoft's easy development environments and IBM's open hardware platform (PC) that allowed innovation to grow and for the many people to become technology savvy. Without this, we would still have $50+k servers and $10+k operating systems.
Watch if Android and Win Mobile don't quickly outstrip the iPhone, the first because it is open and the second because of the number of developers in Visual Studio.
Personally, I would love to have an iPhone right now, but the AT&T network stinks in my area.
Regards,
Joe
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply