I tried to post this as a comment [on the OLDaily post](http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=52593), but got rejected with a "Permission Denied" error.
>Wait. Wired produces a bloated, braindead "magazine" that's really just a CD-ROM's worth of images of magazine pages, and you complain about bloat being the "Apple way" I don't get it, Stephen. Apple had nothing to do with the app. And AT&T in the states is the bad guy for imposing the caps, not Apple. An Android phone running on AT&T would have the _exact same_ limitations.
>
>>D'Arcy
I seem to be consistently putting myself into the role of Apple Apologist, but this kind of confusion pisses me off. Apple doesn't control the network. AT&T (in the States, at least) does. And they do a really shitty job of it.
Take tethering, for instance. It's worked just fine on iPhone OS 3 up here in Canada on Rogers. But AT&T blocks it, saying it's not available until iPhone OS 4 is available this summer. Apple produced an OS with support for tethering over a year ago. It's worked great. But AT&T blocked it, until, I assume, the were able to selectively enable it so they could charge more money for it. The bandwidth problems with the iPhone are entirely AT&T's, not Apple's.
And the Wired app is a joke. There's no way in hell that the model of CD-ROM-sized bundles of images of text is going to fly. It's shiny press release fodder "hey! we have a native app! totally! it's cool!" but it is the worst kind of suck. We've seen this on the internet. It didn't last. It'll pass on mobile devices, too.
But, let's at least get the facts straight, and blame the real offenders rather than jumping on the hate bandwagon.
Don't even get me started on the constant conflation of App Store and The Web. A moderated App Store in no way prevents anyone from putting their own stuff on the devices.