iPhone 還是無法用 iSync 直接用藍芽進行同步
一定要 iTunes + 傳輸線，這點實在很難以接受

各取所需！
誰取的好而已！

也不是每家手機業者都能擁有吸引消費者的實力，也不是每間公司有能耐封鎖自己的格式，
最起碼，之前sony手機上java程式的流暢度，就使我不想使用該手機，

殺頭生意有人做，賠錢生意無人做，電信營運商也不是呆子！

flash是apple不肯讓adobe放進去的.
不過我一點都不想念flash就是了.

同意你不能再多了！
===========================================

u5321007 寫過:

前面說的都是說給”反蘋果”勢力”聽爽”的，就跟政論節目一樣
最後的總結，真是個笑話... 既然這些”賤手段”這麼成功，

”Apple 管理層有必要意識到”　

這結論是怎麼來的？成功的手段，居然還要Apple去檢討"那裡出錯了"? 政府介入? 都嘛事出事了再說
要企業在合法的手段下，"道德"約束自已，真是想太多了，微軟也沒真的因為"反壟段"法案而損失什麼
Android支援的就是"真Java"了? 真搞笑... 以Progammer的角度來說，Java在手機上開發是件瘋狂的事
幸好Google RD都是真神人...開發出Android平台...要是真的用純種Java的話，那會很搞笑..
所以Apple 用Cocoa/Object-C又有什麼錯了? Cocoa/Object-C還能寫OSX程式呢
Andorid能寫linux程式嗎? ... 會賺錢的programmer才不管用什麼語言呢..iPhoneSDK做得比Andorid SDK好是事實
Flash是我上網最討厭的東西了firefox預設都是擋掉..
Adobe應該去檢討 Flash 在OSX上是多麼的爛...

文章寫的相當仔細，
但是作者已經先把自以為是的「結論」定好，
再去鋪陳所有的論點來導向這結論，

這樣的文章看起來真相前輩所說的「台灣政論節目」，
空有一堆證據，
利用似是而非、以偏概全的論點減低了文章的合理性～
可惜

蘋果的開發者文件其實很齊全啊。

另，Flash 的語言環境還是很不錯的。小小幾行可以搞定很多事情⋯⋯祇是被濫用得太誇張。

Thanks for all your ideas, I am the author of this article.
As the matter of fact, I wrote this one just purely for money.

However, I definitely support the idea of "open platform", but I
do understand this only happens in utopia

Don't take this too serious, I still had an iPhone and consider
developing iPhone apps. If I don't use iPhone as the "main phone",
it does fit all my expectation.

最後修改： psxhunter (2009-11-25 00:56:55)

psxhunter 寫過:

Thanks for all your ideas, I am the author of this article.
As the matter of fact, I wrote this one just purely for money.

However, I definitely support the idea of "open platform", but I
do understand this only happens in utopia

Don't take this too serious, I still had an iPhone and consider
developing iPhone apps. If I don't use iPhone as the "main phone",
it does fit all my expectation.

Since you are the author, I would like to clarify this part with you.

之前 Palm 的工程師曾替 Pre 手機寫了一個程式使之可與 iTunes 完全相容，但之後 Apple 卻封鎖了這個軟體並立刻更改傳輸協定。


My understanding is there are many other software that perform a sync to MP3 devices by accessing the iTunes library folder/directory. What Palm did was 'emulate' iPod by identifying itself with Apple's USB vendor ID, which violates the licensing agreement with USB consortium. Any other company would have lock this type of behavior out as well, it has nothing to do with monopoly.


In addition, please read Porter Five Forces, than you understand why Apple is doing what they are doing. In the whole supply chain, the negotiation power is never even. Those with more power would use it to extort extra profit. You can take a look at Toyota's supply chain, Nokia's supply chain, you would notice similar situation. On the other hand, even a carrier which has overwhelming market share would be able to force their supplier to subsidize a lot of their operation cost. The same situation is not only common in mobile phone industry, but any industry. You may not be familiar with Tesco, but other similar hypermarket used the same to force supplier paying for their renovation, promotion and even stocking cost, and at the same time they are producing their own brand of product, competing with these vendors.


Business world is all about profit making (sadly), and moral in most cases have to take a back seat. More over, in the eyes of American shareholders, they don't really care. It is a survival world. If you can not survive with this type of cost and margin, you should to go chapter 11, so is the rules of free market.


Personally, I like your writing. But I seriously do think facts are incomplete, and information has been distorted to come to your conclusion.


iPhone is a successful business model (for phone manufacturer). It;s innovation is not only in the product design, but also into the whole business operations. I know there are many business cases (not articles like yours, more on those academic papers in business school) are been written as of today. What Apple has done with iPhone, is something no one else would have imagine possible 5 years ago: break into a stronghold of a (mobile phone) business with high entry barrier (research, volume, etc.), change the playing field (with product design, app store) and rearrange the (negotiation) power distribution. In this process, Apple stands to benefit from it. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with that.