or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Steve Jobs defends Apple's changes to iPhone developer agreement
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs defends Apple's changes to iPhone developer agreement - Page 5

post #161 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The point you're missing is that Flash produces an inferior product. Sure, it takes less work, but it produces junk. The 'fanboys' simply prefer quality to quantity. Sorry you don't get it.

True, but not in all cases. It seems as though Apple could add a condition that devs had to write code while eating spaghetti and wearing D&G undies and some would argue it was the right decision for any number of reasons.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's easy. Follow the SDK rules that you sign when you become a developer and you won't have a problem. Almost all of the people whining about Apple's unfairness failed to follow the rules - including Adobe.

Until those rules change midstream. The rules in place when most signed up are not the same rules under discussion now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I don't think there's any doubt about that. Remember them throwing out thousands of apps late last year or early this year because they didn't meet quality standards? Notice Jobs making fun of how many Android apps are porn? It's no longer just about quantity, it's about quality, too. Apple has led the industry in customer satisfaction - and this is one way to continue that.

The app purge had more to do with the material than the quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Can you write any app you want? Yes
Does Apple have to sell your app for you if it doesn't meet their standards? No

No one is stopping you from coding in Fortran with punch cards if you wish. Just don't expect Apple to sell your app for you if you can't be bothered to follow their guidelines.

It's that simple.

True enough, but since Apple has set themselves up as the only gateway to the platform, obviously decisions that they make and policies they enforce, that directly affect peoples incomes, are going to come under some scrutiny.

If there were alternative ways to sell your apps to iPhone users, there would be little to complain about Apple's decisions...though I am sure some would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Once you've developed a platform which has sold 85 million units and billions of dollars in revenues, then maybe someone would be interested in your opinion. Until you give some reason for people to think you have credibility, that looks like a juvenile delinquent whining because Mommy won't buy him a new toy.

Opinions are not only valid based on material success. If it were, we might as you for your own proof of being in the billionaires club, as you seem free with your opinions as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Two reasons:

1. Some of the Flash developers are just lazy. You don't have to read too many posts on the topic to come across "I don't want to learn a new platform".
2. Many of the Flash developers aren't really programmers at all. They're little better than script kiddies - and learning real programming is apparently beyond their abilities.

Arguably very true. But, wanting to use what you are comfortable doesn't always make you lazy. It is just human nature. Being more comfortable with a certain environment might also mean being more proficient with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's a moot point, anyway. Unity's spokesperson says that they believe that the rule does not exclude Unity as a resource.

Not exactly positive when the CEO, as of yesterday blogged about this with the statement
"Our current best guess is that well be fine".

Perhaps not such a moot point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Please take the time to learn some basic business finance before posting on the topic.

First, the quoted cost of a 16 MB iPad is $290 - but that doesn't include overhead, shipping, R&D, software, licensing fees, or a number of other costs. It also does not include selling costs either at the Apple Stores or Best Buy. But even if it were an accurate cost, that would be a GROSS MARING of $209 - not a profit of $250. it would also be a 40% gross margin, not a 100% profit margin. (Hint - to have a 100% profit margin, you need to have something with zero cost).

Please stick to talking about topics you know something about. Not only are you making yourself look bad, but it lowers the signal to noise ratio in groups like this.

Gotta say, you have got virtual balls the size of grapefruit to be so insulting to mod.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #162 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by eacumm View Post

Either your a Communist or a wimp, I believe everybody has a right by law to say what he or she believes.



sorry, I forgot the /sarcasm.

That was a sarcastic post that your replied to. First time I have even been called a communist. I am pretty much of a wimp though.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #163 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Is there any line that Apple could cross that would take it beyond "who cares"?

Yes. For example, when Apple doesn't admit to and correct product defects that cause problems for consumers, that's a line where criticism is justly deserved. My experience is that they've gotten better about this than they were in the years before Jobs' return, but there are still occasionally problems. (And, despite what Adobe would have us believe, Flash problems are not one of these instances.) I also think they are much better than most hardware vendors in this regard.

However, as far as developers go, Apple's been telling them for years to use Xcode/Objective-C/Cocoa, and these are business-to-business relationships where everyone is trying to make money. Apple doesn't have any obligation to endanger it's own business interests for the good of these developers, or tool vendors. At best the relationship is symbiotic, at worst, parasitic. But, essentially, if Apple has to make a choice between what's good for themselves and what would please developers. or be good for tool vendors, and those goals are in contradiction, there is no "line", not because Apple can do no wrong, but because it's not a moral issue. Or, if there is something like a moral issue, it's that Apple has an obligation to itself above the interests of others.
post #164 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The thing is, for a certain subset of developers, many of whom have a dog in this hunt, this is all a very big deal and Apple is evil and it involves grave matters of right and wrong and so on.

But for the vast majority of people, Apple's customers and otherwise, all of this is inside baseball and the tone of high moral aggrievement would strike them as insane. It's like hearing from some arcane priesthood that failure to wear a certain robe on a certain day is an abomination in the eyes of God and will bring ruin on the faithless.

So when you demand to know what line Apple would have to cross to bring some terrible final judgement of their sin down on their heads it just sounds wildly disproportionate. Apple isn't mutilating innocents or selling empty boxes to seniors or squirreling away toxic waste in orphanages or scheming to usurp the will of the people. They're being particular about what tools they allow to write software for their devices.

Carrying on like this proves they've gone mad with power or are in alliance with dark forces is just stupid, IMO, and why geeks should never be allowed to decide anything of significance-- because they think minor matters of coding represent the most important things in the world and the very fate of society hangs in the balance. It's actually kind of disgusting, given the real and significant problems we face.

I wasn't asking what line they would have to cross before they would be condemned to hell. Simply what it would take some people to say "that's not right". Not what line they would leave the platform. Not what line they would picket 1 Infinite Loop. Simply, can any action from Apple actually be enough not to agree with.

It is a minor issue, relative to the issues in the world at large. Yet here we are, people on both sides (and some of us trying to remain in the middle) discussing it.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #165 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad View Post

Sure! There are potentially hundreds, thousands of lines that Apple could cross that would make me care enough to say, "Apple, this sucks!"

But this case, IMO, is simply not one of them.

Success really is the best barometer. If something fails it is because that line was crossed. We all, companies included, learn from our mistakes (well, we hope to learn from them).

Lets say, for example, that Apple allowed flash on its iPhone and iPad... and then battery life drained terribly as a result. I'd be pissed! I say, "This hardware is no good to me if it only lasts for short periods of time."

I'd rather use apps that don't use flash, and as a result have longer battery life. If the iPhone or iPad's battery life was minimal, I wouldn't buy either. If many others did the same, the products wouldn't sell - they'd fail.

Apple would learn

If you make a game to play on the Xbox, is it right to complain that the same game (read: disc) doesn't play on a Wii? Of course not. You follow Microsoft's rules for one platform, Nintendo's for another.

Then surely there is room for a developer to say "Apple, this sucks!", and yet want to stay with the platform. Obviously, to do so will eventually mean bending to the rules, since Apple is in total control, but they can still take issue with a decision and stay with the platform.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #166 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Other makers have just as bad policies as to what you can and can't do in order to make anything for their system. Raise as big a stink with other closed systems (including toasters) and maybe more people will listen to you.

I reject your premise that such policies are automatically "bad" and the corollary that close systems are also therefore automatically "bad". Closed systems have their place, just like open systems have their place. There are pro's and con's to each.

Quote:
Until then, this is a non-issue for developers that did the smart thing by using the native SDK. The complainers are just the ones resistant to change. They are afraid to venture out of their safe bubble.

Bingo. Apple was and is very up front about the requirements to play in the App Store. Adobe was hoping to skirt a technicality, and I for one wasn't relishing the "marginal ware" that was going to be churned out wholesale for the App Store. Kudos to Apple for sticking to their guns and further clarifying their position: If you want to play in the App Store, use the native tools!
post #167 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

Let us say you are right. It is Adobe's product, and if they decided not to optimize for the Mac, so be it, just as Apple has the right to place the restrictions that it has.

In a different post, you said that Apple was not being hypocritical about itunes and QT on Windows, because MS had not forbidden the use of abstraction layers.

The issue here is not the fact that Apple put the restrictions in place (as they have every right to do so), it is the reason they gave.

They said that abstraction layers, etc result in bad programs with adverse effects for the OS.

So, in the case of iTunes/QT, they are one or more of the following:
1. hypocritical
2. lazy because the "failed to invest any significant development resources in it"
or
3. Deliberately trying to destabilize Windows.

If they REALLY believed that only good programs should be written for a platform, then they would write it in native code.

Or simply being pragmatic and doing what worked best for them under the rules of the platform. I fully understand that developers who wish to use 3rd-party tools believe this is their most effective route to App Store success. But Apple's purpose is not, and ought not be, to insure the success of individual developers by allowing their platform to be commoditized.
post #168 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Then surely there is room for a developer to say "Apple, this sucks!", and yet want to stay with the platform. Obviously, to do so will eventually mean bending to the rules, since Apple is in total control, but they can still take issue with a decision and stay with the platform.

Exactly! It doesn't bother me that a developer takes issue with one of Apple's decisions, I just find it funny that they want to make money using an Apple platform, and want to do so by their rules, not Apples.

Living in the US, I live in a democratic, capitalist society. Personal wealth is encouraged and most people yearn for more money. So I have a job but it doesn't pay enough for the things I want. So I rob a bank. I get arrested and I say, "Look, I'm not playing by the rules of law, but I am trying to increase my personal wealth and that is supported by society at large. So I don't really deserve to go to jail."

Apple makes the rules for its products. If developers don't like the rules, that's cool, just develop for another platform.
Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
post #169 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregoriusM View Post

The argument seems to be by a lot of people that this will send developers AWAY, not lock them in.

And that argument is a specious one. The quality, committed and most desirable developers aren't affected by this in the least. They are already playing in and leveraging the iPhone OS ecosystem.

The developers affected by this are the "drive by" opportunists that are looking for a cheap and easy way to enter the App Store for a quick buck without having to commit. Hardly a true loss.

Don't let the proverbial door hit your whiny butts on the way out....
post #170 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Yes. For example, when Apple doesn't admit to and correct product defects that cause problems for consumers, that's a line where criticism is justly deserved. My experience is that they've gotten better about this than they were in the years before Jobs' return, but there are still occasionally problems. (And, despite what Adobe would have us believe, Flash problems are not one of these instances.) I also think they are much better than most hardware vendors in this regard.

However, as far as developers go, Apple's been telling them for years to use Xcode/Objective-C/Cocoa, and these are business-to-business relationships where everyone is trying to make money. Apple doesn't have any obligation to endanger it's own business interests for the good of these developers, or tool vendors. At best the relationship is symbiotic, at worst, parasitic. But, essentially, if Apple has to make a choice between what's good for themselves and what would please developers. or be good for tool vendors, and those goals are in contradiction, there is no "line", not because Apple can do no wrong, but because it's not a moral issue. Or, if there is something like a moral issue, it's that Apple has an obligation to itself above the interests of others.

Good points.

It is sort of funny to see how the Apple community's view of external devs has changed. They used to be seen as partners to Apple. Around my campus, maths/comp sci co-op students that came back with WWDC T-shirts were envied as they must have had interesting placements (at least in the eyes those in the MUG on campus). Really, only MS was vilified. Today they are parasites(at worst). Even Adobe used to be held in pretty high regard...though they credibility they have lost is mainly on their own shoulders.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #171 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad View Post

Exactly! It doesn't bother me that a developer takes issue with one of Apple's decisions, I just find it funny that they want to make money using an Apple platform, and want to do so by their rules, not Apples.

Living in the US, I live in a democratic, capitalist society. Personal wealth is encouraged and most people yearn for more money. So I have a job but it doesn't pay enough for the things I want. So I rob a bank. I get arrested and I say, "Look, I'm not playing by the rules of law, but I am trying to increase my personal wealth and that is supported by society at large. So I don't really deserve to go to jail."

Apple makes the rules for its products. If developers don't like the rules, that's cool, just develop for another platform.

I guess for me, it comes down to the application of those rules. With the Mac, Apple always had guidelines. Following those guidelines was a good idea if you wanted your app to behave mac-like and have the Mac look and feel. But with the iPhone, it seems they are determined to use a much more heavy handed approach. I don't do any mobile development, and perhaps it is from being used to the 'open' environments of the desktop OSes, but this type of approach feels wrong...it doesn't feel 'Apple-like'.

Developers must accept the rules (to stay), but that doesn't they have to agree with them.

As an iPhone owner and longtime Apple user, however, the benefits to Apple and to consumers of this more hands-on level of control have certainly been undeniable.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #172 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Wrong. QuickTime X is Cocoa. QuickTime Windows is Carbon.

*sigh*

QuickTime is a C API that has been around since before time began. Not Carbon, not Cocoa, "QuickTime", in vanilla C.... it's still there, and it's the SAME on Windows and Mac (except currently the SDKs have different versions in the headers, 7.3 vs 7.6.3).

It sits along side Core Audio, Core Image, Core Video etc., all of which are C, and none of which are Carbon, or Cocoa - they're considered the Graphics and Media layer.

QTKit, is an Obj-C wrapper on top of QuickTime; I guess that makes it Cocoa.

QuickTime X is a player, written in Cocoa using QTKit, which uses the QuickTime C API.
QuickTime Player for Windows is a native win32 app which uses the QuickTime C API.
post #173 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Good points.

It is sort of funny to see how the Apple community's view of external devs has changed. They used to be seen as partners to Apple. Around my campus, maths/comp sci co-op students that came back with WWDC T-shirts were envied as they must have had interesting placements (at least in the eyes those in the MUG on campus). Really, only MS was vilified. Today they are parasites(at worst). Even Adobe used to be held in pretty high regard...though they credibility they have lost is mainly on their own shoulders.

Most developers have been and are still involved in a symbiotic, rather than parasitic, relationship with Apple. So, it's not the case that there's a general hostility toward developers now. And it's not the case that Apple is hostile toward developers, just look at the article and thread about the removal of the rate on delete function, done solely to please developers.

I think, in large part, it's a very healthy relationship, and one that customers realize they benefit from.
post #174 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

True, but not in all cases. It seems as though Apple could add a condition that devs had to write code while eating spaghetti and wearing D&G undies and some would argue it was the right decision for any number of reasons.

The difference, of course, is that Apple has explained why using the abstraction layers affects app quality - and virtually every knowledgeable developer agreed. Just how would eating spaghetti affect product quality?

IOW, your argument doesn't have even a shred of rational thinking behind it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Until those rules change midstream. The rules in place when most signed up are not the same rules under discussion now.

That is one of the inaccuracies you keep stating. In fact, the rules didn't change. Apple's intent in the original SDK was clear but Adobe thought they'd try to find a clever way to work around it. Apple simply clarified what was clear to everyone but Adobe from the start.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The app purge had more to do with the material than the quality.

And you know this because.....?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

True enough, but since Apple has set themselves up as the only gateway to the platform, obviously decisions that they make and policies they enforce, that directly affect peoples incomes, are going to come under some scrutiny.

That's fine. People can scrutinize all they want. It doesn't change the fact that what Apple did was perfectly legal, but if you want to scrutinize, go right ahead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

If there were alternative ways to sell your apps to iPhone users, there would be little to complain about Apple's decisions...though I am sure some would.

Some people complain about EVERYTHING Apple does - including, apparently, you. Apple doesn't need to offer alternative ways to sell apps on their phone. If you want to create your own system, go ahead and do so. Just stop whining that Apple doesn't do it the way you think they should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Opinions are not only valid based on material success. If it were, we might as you for your own proof of being in the billionaires club, as you seem free with your opinions as well.

Riiigghhhht. Where did I say only billionaires were entitled to an opinion? I said that if the person is claiming that he can do it better than Apple, he needs to provide some evidence of that.

Since I never claimed that I could do it better than Apple, I don't have to provide such evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Arguably very true. But, wanting to use what you are comfortable doesn't always make you lazy. It is just human nature. Being more comfortable with a certain environment might also mean being more proficient with it.

That's fine with me. They can be proficient all they want with painting or music or anything else they want to do. They can learn Flash or Fortran or Cobol or assembly language if they wish. But that doesn't change the fact that in Apple's opinion, these runtime solutions do not provide good code and if they want to develop for iPhone, they need to use an approved method.

Does that say that it's impossible to produce good code with some other language? Of course not. It simply says that Apple doesn't think it's worth the bother. If enough people write great apps in Pascal and ask Apple to consider adding it, Apple will undoubtedly consider it. But as of today, they have no evidence that any other development platform is going to consistently produce good apps - and virtually every developer here agrees with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Not exactly positive when the CEO, as of yesterday blogged about this with the statement
"Our current best guess is that well be fine".

Perhaps not such a moot point.

Sounds like Unity thinks that they're fine - just as I said.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Gotta say, you have got virtual balls the size of grapefruit to be so insulting to mod.

I don't care who it is - if they post such inane figures and pretend they know what they're talking about, I'll correct them. I wasn't insulting - just told them to learn something about finance before posting on financial topics. Failing to do so is indefensible.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #175 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacMad View Post

Sure! There are potentially hundreds, thousands of lines that Apple could cross that would make me care enough to say, "Apple, this sucks!"

But this case, IMO, is simply not one of them.

Success really is the best barometer. If something fails it is because that line was crossed. We all, companies included, learn from our mistakes (well, we hope to learn from them).

Lets say, for example, that Apple allowed flash on its iPhone and iPad... and then battery life drained terribly as a result. I'd be pissed! I say, "This hardware is no good to me if it only lasts for short periods of time."

Likewise, a lot of people are pissed for iPhone/iPad not supporting Flash. You can't make everyone happy with single solution. Best thing you can do is give a Flash and an option to disable it, and let users choose. Choice is always good. But that option would let people use unauthorised (by Apple) Flash applications, and more and more I'm convinced that is real reason for Apple's behaviour.

Quote:
I'd rather use apps that don't use flash, and as a result have longer battery life. If the iPhone or iPad's battery life was minimal, I wouldn't buy either. If many others did the same, the products wouldn't sell - they'd fail.

I'm sure 3D games are killing battery much faster than Flash content. My decision is not to game on iPhone (short of 2-3 really simple 2D games), but I still don't think Apple should kill 3D gaming on iDevices in order not to piss people with short battery life. Everyone should choose for himself should he/she preserve battery life to the max, or use features to the max. Or anything in between.

Quote:
Apple would learn

If you make a game to play on the Xbox, is it right to complain that the same game (read: disc) doesn't play on a Wii? Of course not. You follow Microsoft's rules for one platform, Nintendo's for another.

Number of games are being developed for multi-platform. Personally I dislike when MS, Sony... get game developers into exclusive deal. But that's me.
post #176 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

There's a few problems.

I get your point. If Apple developers are as much coolaid drinkers as the fanboys and they refuse to accept that they have any shared responsibility in their platform, then yes -- it would look like it was all Adobe's fault. But if they're at all informed as realize that as Adobe said, they didn't have access to GPU API's, so that's why Adobe never implemented it, and so on, then maybe things could get better.

If Apple has not given Adobe what they need to have Flash run as fast on OS X as on Windows, then how is it that the next iteration of Flash later this year will, according to Adobe, use 50% of the CPU it now uses on the Mac, and be just a tad slower than its Windows equivalent?

Sounds more like what Steve P. said about Adobe being lazy than Apple preventing Flash from being faster and less of a resource hog.

Sure, if I was a huge Flash fan, I'd love it to be able to use the GPU, but if it can't, it can't. That doesn't excuse Adobe from not working on the efficiency of Flash on the Mac since it can obviously do it and have announced that it will come later this year.

So, who's to say that if Adobe DOES improve Flash, that it won't be on Apple's iGadgets. I don't miss it, but at the least, I'd like to have it perform much better on my Mac OS X machines.
post #177 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

Software Development 101. Higher level languages or solutions take fewer lines to get more work done. ObjectiveC and Cocoa are much lower level than Flash (especially for creating information systems, and especially if you're a publishing house that already has the content in something like InDesign and using Adobe's tools to output exactly this kind of functionality).

Sue Denim - my new favorite poster. Too bad you are banned. I wonder what it was that you said because everything I read seemed very well stated and rational.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #178 of 219
This is no different then Microsoft saying .net runtime only on their phone and Android saying the Java runtime only. No one would have a problem with .net and Java because they _seem_ more open. The Objective-C runtime is an open specification from the NextStep days too, so this really is no different then the competitors.

Compatibility layers are different then programming languages. Multiple languages run on top of .net and Java. Apple is developing a port of Ruby that runs on top of the Objective-C runtime called MacRuby. When it is finished it will most likely be allowed on the iPhone. Other programming languages could run on top of the Objective-C runtime too. This is no different then the .net and Java runtimes.

Basically Apple is being criticized for doing the same thing as every one else, but they are treated as if they are the only ones with this policy. Instead of making their platform unable to support this due to JIT compilation, they use legal contracts to prevent it instead.

Compatibility layers for UI (what apple is really concerned about) are awful. Look at Java Swing or QT for example. You can definitely tell they are inferior to a native app. Even something as simple as Cut and Paste often doesn't work on Java programs. I would be more forgiving of non-UI code personally. The types of applications that are available for the iPhone are primarily UI driven because there is very little processing power. These types of apps you really need to write from scratch for the platform. If you put the work in to make a compatibility layer look like a native app it would have been easier to write the native app in the first place. Ex-Sun Microsystems managers and people who have never written an application both ways before are the only people who think differently here. Beyond that, the iPhone is a very easy platform to develop for. I've heard Android and Silverlight are also pretty easy to develop for. Developers also don't scale very well. It is easier for a developer to target one platform. If you want to target multiple platforms, hire more developers to port to them. Three developers on three platforms works better then three developers on one compatibility layer.

The exception to this is of course games because they will port more easily between platforms, but games are written in C++ anyway so it isn't a big deal.
post #179 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sue Denim - my new favorite poster. Too bad you are banned. I wonder what it was that you said because everything I read seemed very well stated and rational.

Sue Denim = pseudonym = previously banned troll. Get it?

"Her" last post let forth with the "Koolaid" and "fanboys" tirade thus exposing the true nature. AppleIsider mods are not stupid.
post #180 of 219
Good for Jobs.
I don't want any Flash crud on my mobile Apple devices. On my Mac, I block Flash when using Firefox and Safari, and will continue to do so.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
post #181 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sue Denim - my new favorite poster. Too bad you are banned. I wonder what it was that you said because everything I read seemed very well stated and rational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Sue Denim = pseudonym = previously banned troll. Get it?

"Her" last post let forth with the "Koolaid" and "fanboys" tirade thus exposing the true nature. AppleIsider mods are not stupid.

I was starting to wonder if "Sue" were posting from an Adobe IP
post #182 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I was starting to wonder if "Sue" were posting from an Adobe IP

Wouldn't surprise me... it would explain why it has taken Adobe the better part of a decade trying to make Flash on the Mac suck less. They have to fit that pesky coding in between the hours they spend trying to defend their bloated and inefficient products on message boards and blogs.
post #183 of 219
Well Adobe, when you suck in bed - ya suck in bed.
post #184 of 219
Some people are scared that if Apple keeps picking with adobe, adobe will pull their software for mac and stop developing for them. I've seen two or three interviews with different tech guru's who think that will eventually be the case. But the majority of creative suite users are mac users. I don't think adobe would want to lose that amount of customers. With the prices for their software it is limited to the pros or people who use it for their income and adobe would be stupid to fight back with such a move. One poll estimated that 71% of adobe creative suite users are using it on a mac. I seriously doubt adobe will want to lose 71% of their returning customers. Apple is smart and does not want adobe to have any control of the apps release. And adobe has made no effort to improve the way flash works on mobile devices such as iPhone and iPad. Flash is even slow on nexus one and droid phones. Everyone thinks Apple is crazy for not letting flash work on their mobile devices and that HTML5 is never going to take the place of flash, but ever since the iPad was announced thousands of companies have already changed their entire websites to work with the iPad with HTML5. They want their content to be able to be viewed on the most popular mobile devices which is a market that Apple currently rules. The iPad alone is enough to make people change their web pages over to HTML5 instead of (crash), i mean flash. I think the future will be HTML5 and not flash. Apple has a major impact on the mobile tech community and they set the trend. If this is what Jobs wants, this is what Jobs will get.
post #185 of 219
Just add flash for Christ sakes and make everyone happy
post #186 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

But plenty of developers will will not follow the rules and still make money. With other, growing OSs.

The developers who choose a different game will make apps for other platforms. And iPhone users will not enjoy their apps.

It is not a question of all or none. It is more vs. fewer. 75% of smart phone users do not have Apple products. If a developer can get 75% of the market with their work, or 25%, some might choose 75%, and eschew the iPhone.

The iPhone may only be 25% of the overall smartphone market, but if you eliminate Blackberry devices (which make up roughly half of smartphones) from those that have a strong presence in the application-based standings their main competition consists of devices running Android and WebOS. The latter is a platform that is struggling for survival and the former is not without problems. Android is growing, but the lack of uniformity amongst the handsets and the versions of the OS they support (as many like to put it "fragmentation") can make it difficult for a developer to assure that their design will work as desired for all phones running the OS. This has not been a major problem thus far for the iPhone. The worst we have to deal with is a handful of features that change between hardware revisions (and some software features that are unsupported on older hardware ala multitasking) and different resolutions between the iPhone and the iPad (and maybe iPhone v4 hardware).

Developers pick their poison. Right now the iPhone has roughly double the user base of all Android based smartphones combined, as well as having the same basic platform as the iPad. However, developers are bound by stringent rules. Android allows for a variety of languages to be used for development and does not require an application store to distribute software, all at the cost of needing extra work to account for the different OS versions and associated hardware. Sure, you can target just the Droid or the Nexus One, but the overall Android marketshare sits in the low double digits at best, so a single handset among dozens is a very narrow market to target.
post #187 of 219
Apple only made up 25% of the market in 2008-2009. since the beginning of the year apple has doubled is sales percentage. By the end of the year they will be closer to half the market. And if they go to verizon which they eventually will, they will dominate. The only reason people even buy a blackberry or dorid is because they don't want AT&T just to get a iphone. If the iphone was available on their good carrier they would have one. The iphone is the most sought after smartphone on the market. If it were available to more carriers, game over. Adobe would be stupid not to jump on that wagon. As for apple products in general. 80% of iphone users have other apple products in their home. I for one bought the original iphone as my first apple product and now own 3 imacs, 2 iphones, and and ipad on the way. I am just one of 80% percent of iphone users who will continue to buy apple products cause they work. When apple eventually dominates the mobile device market and those customers buy more apple products because of their experience with an iphone, there will be a lot more apple products around. Not developing for apple would be a huge mistake.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

But plenty of developers will will not follow the rules and still make money. With other, growing OSs.

The developers who choose a different game will make apps for other platforms. And iPhone users will not enjoy their apps.

It is not a question of all or none. It is more vs. fewer. 75% of smart phone users do not have Apple products. If a developer can get 75% of the market with their work, or 25%, some might choose 75%, and eschew the iPhone.
post #188 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by amitofu View Post

Good point. Apple uses a compatibility layer (Cocoa) to get iTunes and Safari to run on Windows without having to rewrite them from scratch as native applications. And they do it in a different programming language than what Windows' native APIs are written in.

Oh the Irony. And what hypocrisy!

And they both suck do they not? Point proven.
post #189 of 219
I haven't read through the whole thread, but there appears to be lots of whining about Flash. Can we ignore Flash for a second? What about the other popular frameworks - especially Unity and GameSalad. GameSalad claims 10 of the top selling 100 iPad game apps were made with their tools. Unity claims "a significant proportion of the best selling" games. The new license language clearly appears to prohibit these popular and lucrative tools.

Those saying to ONLY use Obj-C or go play somewhere else clearly have no idea how modern, large applications are developed - especially games. It is quite common to write some sort of domain specific language that gets interpreted by a game engine. And no one is going to write things like physics engines from scratch in Obj-C when they could use the one built in to a tool like Unity.

Apple obviously tried to block Adobe & Flash, but their heavy-handed language - at face value - also bans a bunch of other widely used tools.

- Jasen.
post #190 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

I haven't read through the whole thread, but there appears to be lots of whining about Flash. Can we ignore Flash for a second? What about the other popular frameworks - especially Unity and GameSalad. GameSalad claims 10 of the top selling 100 iPad game apps were made with their tools. Unity claims "a significant proportion of the best selling" games. The new license language clearly appears to prohibit these popular and lucrative tools.

Those saying to ONLY use Obj-C or go play somewhere else clearly have no idea how modern, large applications are developed - especially games. It is quite common to write some sort of domain specific language that gets interpreted by a game engine. And no one is going to write things like physics engines from scratch in Obj-C when they could use the one built in to a tool like Unity.

Apple obviously tried to block Adobe & Flash, but their heavy-handed language - at face value - also bans a bunch of other widely used tools.

- Jasen.

GameSalad doesn't exactly look like it is targeted at developers of large, modern applications (many of which still extensively use C and C++ by the way).

Apple isn't forcing users to write new physics engines; I'm sure for efficiency reasons many of these libs are already written in C and/or C++ with hooks into them from higher level interfaces. As long as the behavior script language gets compiled down to native instructions at application compile time AND doesn't require direct linking to Apple's APIs, there may not even be a problem there.

Oh, and Unity thinks they are unaffected by the changes to the agreement.

Much of this was previously discussed. Next time read the whole thread.
post #191 of 219
Reasonable comments and analysis by Gerbarg here and Gassée's here.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #192 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle View Post

Reasonable comments and analysis by Gerbarg here.


Quote:
Final Judgment in Microsoft Antitrust Case
...
API & Communication Protocol Disclosure -- To prevent Microsoft from taking advantage of private APIs in its middleware products, the settlement requires Microsoft to disclose the APIs (Application Programming Interfaces; the hooks applications use to connect to middleware or an operating system). Plus, Microsoft must also make available, via reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing terms, the communication protocols used by any product Microsoft installs with Windows and that communicates with a Microsoft server operating system, such as Windows 2000.

In this section, Judge Kollar-Kotelly made one significant change by reducing the time before which these disclosures must be made to three months, down from twelve months and nine months, for the API disclosures and the communication protocol disclosures, respectively.
...

http://db.tidbits.com/article/6980
post #193 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle View Post

Reasonable comments and analysis by Gerbarg here.

very insightful comments and gives great perspective on how other companies can control your own development schedule. I totally agree with what Apple has implemented in their license agreement.
post #194 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll View Post

http://db.tidbits.com/article/6980

please explain your rational of linking MS verdict in 2002 with Apple and Adobe?
post #195 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The difference, of course, is that Apple has explained why using the abstraction layers affects app quality - and virtually every knowledgeable developer agreed. Just how would eating spaghetti affect product quality?

IOW, your argument doesn't have even a shred of rational thinking behind it.

of course it wouldn't. That was simply a reply to your silly assertion that fanboys prefer quality over quantity. That is just fantasy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is one of the inaccuracies you keep stating. In fact, the rules didn't change. Apple's intent in the original SDK was clear but Adobe thought they'd try to find a clever way to work around it. Apple simply clarified what was clear to everyone but Adobe from the start.

Nice of you to provide your personal interpretation of the rules and the changes to those rule while trying to show that the rules haven't changed. Logic is fun isn't it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And you know this because.....?

Apple's own statements on matter actually. Don't let facts get in the way of your fantasies, however.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's fine. People can scrutinize all they want. It doesn't change the fact that what Apple did was perfectly legal, but if you want to scrutinize, go right ahead.

because we all know legal mean right, right? Who claimed this was a legal matter? More silliness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Some people complain about EVERYTHING Apple does - including, apparently, you. Apple doesn't need to offer alternative ways to sell apps on their phone. If you want to create your own system, go ahead and do so. Just stop whining that Apple doesn't do it the way you think they should.

No, some people are just so infatuated with Apple, that anyone that might even question them is seen as complaining. Those that have a complaint are seen as the enemy...always complaining.

I suppose a simple way of looking at the world, but one that seem common. Or, as seems to be the case here, a delusion confused with fact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Riiigghhhht. Where did I say only billionaires were entitled to an opinion? I said that if the person is claiming that he can do it better than Apple, he needs to provide some evidence of that.

Perhaps you might read what you wrote. You did write it so you should be able to understand it.
"Once you've developed a platform which has sold 85 million units and billions of dollars in revenues, then maybe someone would be interested in your opinion. Until you give some reason for people to think you have credibility"

So, have you sold 85 million units (I expect you would then be a billionaire)? Because "then maybe someone would be interested in your opinion. Until you give some reason for people to think you have credibility, that looks like a juvenile delinquent whining because" someone questions your dear leader.

reading is fun.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Since I never claimed that I could do it better than Apple, I don't have to provide such evidence.

well duh.
Too bad that wasn't the topic. The topic was simply yuo being so free with your opinion here and your advice, yet unable to meet your own criteria for spewing your opinion.

reading really is fun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's fine with me. They can be proficient all they want with painting or music or anything else they want to do. They can learn Flash or Fortran or Cobol or assembly language if they wish. But that doesn't change the fact that in Apple's opinion, these runtime solutions do not provide good code and if they want to develop for iPhone, they need to use an approved method.

Does that say that it's impossible to produce good code with some other language? Of course not. It simply says that Apple doesn't think it's worth the bother. If enough people write great apps in Pascal and ask Apple to consider adding it, Apple will undoubtedly consider it. But as of today, they have no evidence that any other development platform is going to consistently produce good apps - and virtually every developer here agrees with them.

But again, that isn't what my reply was to. You said
"1. Some of the Flash developers are just lazy. You don't have to read too many posts on the topic to come across "I don't want to learn a new platform".
2. Many of the Flash developers aren't really programmers at all. They're little better than script kiddies - and learning real programming is apparently beyond their abilities."

Lazy or not real programmers. As even you admit, that was hardly a fair or complete list. It was simply rhetoric and hyperbole...and not very insightful at that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sounds like Unity thinks that they're fine - just as I said.

Sounds like they aren't sure. Guesses aren't confirmation of anything. To most people anyway. I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I don't care who it is - if they post such inane figures and pretend they know what they're talking about, I'll correct them. I wasn't insulting - just told them to learn something about finance before posting on financial topics. Failing to do so is indefensible.

Of course it was insulting. It was meant to be. But, maybe, only on careful reading.

In the meantime, "stick to talking about topics you know something about. You making yourself look bad."

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #196 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

please explain your rational of linking MS verdict in 2002 with Apple and Adobe?

Private APIs are only acceptable to the degree that a vendor is unsuccessful gaining a dominant majority market share.

That's a question open source Android will never have to answer.

I guess with Apple's license change Gartner can move up their prediction a bit.
post #197 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle View Post

Reasonable comments and analysis by Gerbarg here.

Good read and a thoughtful analysis.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #198 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

Are you saying that Apple releases sub-standard software?

i'm not saying it. windows users do. since i don't use windows, i'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they know better than i do.
post #199 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

Apple realizes that. That is exactly what was intended by the new language.

The layers you describe, between the developer and the platform, produce sub-standard apps. Ultimately, they hinder the progress of the platform itself.

Apple wants the users to have the best possible user experience. All those apps with intermediate layers will be gone soon enough.

I completely disagree and hope you are wrong. All those intermediate layers let developers focus on their application domain and not worry about lower level code. Just like a "scroll bar" object lets a developer not worry about click detection, tracking the mouse, redrawing the pixels, etc. Apple provides lots of libraries and abstraction layers to help devs write good apps. Other parties can provide similar tools for other application domains, from 2D games (GameSalad) to 3D games (Unity) to devs coming from other environments (Appcelerator Titanium).

I hope that Apple comes down that as long as the code generated by 3rd party tools goes through XCode for final compilation then it is OK.

But knowing Apple, they will likely selectively enforce the clause arbitrarily.

- Jasen.
post #200 of 219
double post.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Steve Jobs defends Apple's changes to iPhone developer agreement