I didn’t watch the livestream of the Google IO event. I didn’t find out until late yesterday that it was live via YouTube. Besides which, I wouldn’t have wanted to devote hours and hours to watching that.
Anyway, it seems the war is now openly declared, if Dan Lyons (aka Fake Steve Jobs) is to be believed:
The most telling thing to me was Google’s tone toward Apple at the event. Instead of pretending to still be an Apple ally, Google today basically threw down the gantlet and admitted that it’s engaged in total war with Apple.
And unlike other Apple rivals, like Adobe, Google execs weren’t huffing and puffing and wringing their hands about Apple’s bad behavior. No, instead, Google was mocking Apple. Making fun of it. Laughing at it.
That excerpt from a column where he states he’s dropping his iPhone and switching to Android!
So, Sports Illustrated takes a second shot at doing an e version, one that will pass Apple’s Section 3.3.1.
It’s superior to the first.
But if this is HTML5 — basically a tarted-up website — and not something that’s downloaded to a device to keep … how do you turn that into money?
Raise your hand if you didn’t see this coming.
iPad Says No to Violence and Adult Situations in Manga
I hope HP and Palm are paying close attention to the issues here.
Freedom of Expression could turn out to be the killer app for a webOS tablet.
Steve Jobs Offers World ‘Freedom From Porn’
I have no problem with Apple refusing porn access. Maybe Gawker’s Tate needs some education on the unequivocal sickness that’s out there.
Oh, this is totally off-topic. But my allegiance is not to Apple. It’s to writers (see this post).
Ibis Reader enables non-DRMed ePub eBooks to be read on any device that has a web browser.
After the break, see what it looks like running on my crap PC using a version of Firefox 2.x and then on webOS.
The contradictory — no, now it’s outright nonsensical — hand of Apple is at work, rejecting things again.
Creepy Steve Jobs May Not Want You to Read This (or Will Break Down Your Door)
Apple has rejected an app version of this column—which, on a relatively frequent basis goes out of its way to analyze the odd behavior of Steve Jobs.
[. . .]
The stated reason for the rejection of my free app is that Apple requires “sufficient amounts of content to appeal to a broad audience.” Putting aside the fact that this pretty much makes specialty content ineligible for iPhone or iPad apps, it’s also a pretty fudgy standard.
What if I wanted to publish an app that was a specialist’s tool? It could be anything. Some obscure aspect of metadata organization, or a compilation of medical research material, or even a collection of presentations about software theory, anything that would have a very limited yet actual audience. Is Apple going to deny me the chance to earn that money? Because, in Apple’s eyes, I’m not appealing to the great wad of people out there who own and buy its devices?