iPhone vs. the I-Phone (The Political Implications of Smartphones)

I program for the iPhone, I own one, and I am a Libertarian.

The concept that the iPhone is an open system compared to Android being a more open one, is really only pertinent to developers and very technical users that want a few specific features - not to the general populace.

For most people both phones are equally open. But in fact because the iPhone is generally simpler to use (the Droid does not have multitouch to allow pinching to zoom in for example, although some Android platforms can) and the iPhone has a wide variety of applications, it is actually more "freeing" in the most important sense for a user - it helps you DO more. These are tools remember, so unless a user was planning to write and submit an application it will not matter to them as much if there is one thing the iPhone cannot do or approval is more limited when there are ten more things it can do for them compared to other platforms.

I think it a mistake to critique iPhone users on the concept of Freedom when the ones who picked up the platform early were the pioneers who helped push a new level of smartphone usability to the mainstream. Many iPhone users are just as interested in avoiding a nanny state as you are.

As for the application approval being "Byzantine", being a developer I do not find that so at all. I have been involved with over a dozen applications so far and approval was straightforward in all cases. Again, it's certain limited categories where this is true, but the world is so much wider than this narrow field.

It's a phone, not a political statement. Reviewing for proper functionality is not the same as controlling usefulness.

iPhone users are not "liberals." They're people who like iPhones.

QUOTE: "Likewise, those same [iPhone] people are NOT INTERESTED in the freedom provided by our Constitution and our Founding Principles. They religiously worship the iPhone and feel justified in trying to force everyone to have an iLife."

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read at Townhall.

I'm a software developer with experience in Open Source software. I'm a strong libertarian, and I see solid logic behind Apple's strategy. It's all about trade-offs. iPhone's success has been phenomenal and well-deserved. iPhone & Droid will fight it out in the marketplace.

Republicans need to be more tech-savvy- it's so frustrating to see us struggling in the utilization & understanding of tech/online. This article is a good example of struggling...

I think the iPhone is a great product and there NOTHING WRONG with how Apple runs its business. Its all very smart. So Smart that Apple has been able to expand its customer base to people who aren't predominantly liberal. But I think any objective look at the ad campaigns and customer base of Apple, and the near religious attitudes of some of its customers and I think you will notice a prominent political/lifestyle component. I agree too many, its only a really well executed smart phone, but to others it really is a way of life, and the article is an attempt (and perhaps a poor one) at satire of the latter group.

Obviously Apple is market driven, and will be trying to respond to its customers' needs. However, in the "limited categories where this is true", and Apple has restricted what its customers/developers will be able to do, it has defined those things that would be best for the general populace or the "common good." It is a sacrifice of the needs of a few to the needs of the many- which while being very good business sense, is also a political view. (Which I must reiterate, is all fine and well for a phone, but not so good for a Government)

I agree it is all about tradeoffs. The question is "Who is to decide" what trade-offs I can make? In one system, the company owning the OS makes the decisions, and in another each individual developer and user does. I don't think it takes a lot of tech-savvy to see the difference, and make a (perhaps poor) analogy to politics. Obviously Apple as a company works under different incentives than our government, and is prefectly able to produce an excellent product.

My non-leftist credentials are very sound and I develop for the iPhone and I can say with complete confidence that the iPhone tech and business model exist for practical not philosophical reasons.

Phones are not personal computers. People require a much higher level of reliability and security from phones than PCs. That in turn requires that the quality of 3rd party software be much, much higher. The only way to get that quality is by having experts monitor what goes into the phones software ecosystem.

Besides, people can and do "jailbreak" iPhones so that they can use them as they wish. Apple merely offers an integrated service for managing the phones. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to. If you want to run software written by the Russian mob, you can easily do so.

Otherwise, the "freedom" to run any software you wish turns into something like the "freedom" to be sexually promiscuous and get the clap or something else.

Android isn't an OS as much as it is a loose standard that lets vendors build operating systems for their phones. There won't be one Android market but dozens or hundreds. Quality will be hit or miss and security will be a nightmare.

Android runs a real risk of being the Windows ME of the smartphone world. A blizzard of crappy implementations and insecure apps could easily destroy the brand.

The locked down model of the iPhone is the only way have a phone system that works.

Yes, we know, Apple left the Chamber of Commerce. Apple is run by people who probably voted for Obama. SO WHAT? If you have to explain this is satire - it did not work as satire. I love my iPhone but am as conservative as they come. This us vs them mentality is a big part of the problem. I love my iPhone, am technologically naive and would never be able to 'figure out" how to interface ANYTHING much less fiddle for hours trying to get applications to work smoothly. I suppose I could Jerry rig my washer and dryer as well, but I don't want to. SO WHAT? Why is EVERYTHING POLITICAL?

"But I think any objective look at the ad campaigns and customer base of Apple, and the near religious attitudes of some of its customers..."

First, apple customers - there is nothing "nearly religious" about Apple customers. Some of them enjoy Apple products and recommend them, but that is true of any product you enjoy and has worked well for you. The advocacy Apple users engage in is based on practical experience, not any kind of cult following. This myth is promoted heavily by those who dislike Apple but bears no relation to the actual users, who in fact pretty much all have very practical attitudes and a lot of experience with both Mac and Windows platforms (since so many use Windows at work),

Secondly, what aspect of the ad campaigns makes you think this? Is not the very concept of "Switching" all about the freedom to choose? Is not the aspect touted in many ads that you can also run Microsoft software on Macs about the freedom to run more platforms than you could before?

The iPhone ads themselves are as neutral as can be, just showing how you can run many different applications. The only possible inkling of a liberal tilt is the tendency to always show Safari browsing the NYT home page showing the Obama victory, but that's about as far as it goes and the rest of the ads are more about Freedom to aquire information on your own terms than not.

Apple is living proof that the market is working, that someone like Microsoft cannot hold a market closed forever artificially because competition will eventually move past them.

Kendall,

It would seem to me that someone who bothers to fact-check humor (CNN) is a Zealot who simply can't stand to have their views questioned. You doth protest too much.

Apple's ad campaigns typically highlight the "Smart" Mac-User against the "Lame" PC User, and the branding of an "iLife" where everything just works together is now part of the Apple corporate image. The argument about the Droid was that Apple offered a more integrated experience than an open-source multi-platform device could ever offer, and therefore would not and could not entice iPhone users.

If that is true, it is Apple's top down-centralized control that makes that possible. (Does Apple lets it OS be run on multiple platforms? Is that a type of freedom? )

The Liberal tilt is that Liberals want to run the country like Apple runs its platform and OS. You can circumvent Apple's control through cracks and emulators, but you can't do it with approval and help from Apple, just like you can't run a criminal enterpise and expect protection and help from the government.

The Market allows those who want that top-down corporate approved experience can buy Apple products, and those who don't to buy other things. The (humorous) analogy looses it at that point. Government is NOT a market. Apple must get business from voluntary transactions. Government can force money from people's pockets.

Liberals and Mac Zealots (which many Apple users are not) don't want there to be a competing product/platform. They don't want people to have a choice between an iCountry in Europe and an I-Country here. They want an iWorld, where the government dictate the iLife you are going to have.