or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple no longer banning third-party iOS development tools
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple no longer banning third-party iOS development tools - Page 5

post #161 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

But now that Apple had made their decision, isn't it the Mac user's duty to support and defend that decision and pretend that the past never happened?

Following on the natural selection theme... it's called adaptation. You try different paths but adapt to external conditions. Once a company stops adapting, it dies. IBM?

It don't have a duty to anything, except truth. And I'm still exploring as to what truth is. So I may have to adapt.
post #162 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zweben View Post

Ever browse the app store by release date? There are tens of thousands of those already.

Developers with high standards will continue to release good software, regardless of the tools they use. Developers with low standards will continue to release junk, regardless of the tools they use.

Correct. But sadly, the more tools available (making it easier to create apps), the more junk we may see in the App store.
Hopefully, expect Apple to be advertising soon for App store software reviewers to stem the tide of even more crapola.
post #163 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by ijoyner View Post

If Apple were only about maximizing total profits, they would have given up on Mac and OS X and just converted to becoming another Windows all-so-ran.

Wrong. They believe that their current strategy will yield the highest amount of profit over time.

Why is that hard for you to believe? Do you think that maximizing total profits is somehow a bad thing?
post #164 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by ijoyner View Post

No, competition is not a necessity for good outcomes - rather cooperation is the key. Competition is just a dubious motivation technique.

Cooperation is ethical. Raw competition is unethical and must be bound by rules. Cooperation is constructive, competition destructive. Cooperation means all are winners, competition means there must be losers. Cain and Abel were the archetypes of the first competition and the result there was hardly enviable.

If humanity can learn and apply this lesson, then we will evolve to the next level beyond the apes. It would be nice to learn this, but I think we will in the end be forced to cooperation. Global warming is already moving us towards a forced cooperation where we have to put our competitions behind us.

Competition is based on ego, cooperation on respect.

At the most competition is an accidental, not an essential:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/

Competition is petty, cooperation is noble.

Those who think we can survive on competition for much longer are living in a fool's paradise.

Can you give some big-deal examples of where cooperation clearly yielded better results than competition? Like stuff on the scale of the wealth of nations, and not little hippie co-ops?
post #165 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Can you give some big-deal examples of where cooperation clearly yielded better results than competition? Like stuff on the scale of the wealth of nations, and not little hippie co-ops?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_treaty
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #166 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_treaty

Good example.

Notably, however, you identify an event, and not a system.
post #167 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Good example.

Notably, however, you identify an event, and not a system.

Do you really need specific peace treaties to understand how cooperation could [yield] better results than competition on a national scale?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #168 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Wrong. They believe that their current strategy will yield the highest amount of profit over time.

Why is that hard for you to believe? Do you think that maximizing total profits is somehow a bad thing?

Your earlier post said "And they have only one: to maximize total profits. Everything and anything else is just a means to that end. This is true of every publicly traded company in the world."

I'm answering your false conjecture that their only raison d'etre is to maximize total profits. That is simply simplistic and wrong. There is much more to Apple and many companies than that. If that was all they were about, you'd see a mass exodus of talent.

Maybe they believe now their current strategy will yield the highest profit over time, but that was not always the case and they persevered through the times when that wasn't obvious at all.
post #169 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Can you give some big-deal examples of where cooperation clearly yielded better results than competition? Like stuff on the scale of the wealth of nations, and not little hippie co-ops?

You are looking like you have a very small-minded cynical view of the world of people who only act out of the basest motives. There are many examples where without cooperation nothing would have been achieved. What has been said is that competition is just there. However, where cooperation does not triumph over competition, nothing happens.

Take for example the atomic bomb (of course born out of the worst competition). Even in the group the competition between Oppenheimer and Szillard was poisonous (and other factors that eventually destroyed Oppenheimer), but there was enough cooperation in the group to achieve their goal.

Scientists can usually resolve their differences to advance science. That is cooperation, but of course they compete and they bring different views and challenge existing thought. That is why we have many of society's structures to aid cooperation. It's not all the wild west.

An orchestra playing great music must have cooperation triumphing over petty tensions within the group. Not every one gets on. But egos must be put aside in the name of achievement. There are so many examples of where cooperation must succeed over competition. Competition just results in catastrophe. But I don't look at the world through rose-coloured glasses - of course competition exists, but it must be controlled.

So competition is just a base motive triggered from the lowest part of the reptilian brain. Cooperation is what human spirit is about. Not everyone is motivated by competition. Many are motivated by the spirit of imagination, and altogether higher motivation.

It's only those who have never had higher-level motivations that only move because of base competition that argue that everything is only motivated by competition. They weren't challenged at school and never experienced the high of real achievement. They become managers and marketers and their competitive nature tells them they have the most important jobs in companies, not those who create the products in the first place. These people are dangerous. They then try to fool us in groups like this that competition is the prime motivator and deny that there are many people who do things out of higher motives - those people they label "hippies".
post #170 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Can you give some big-deal examples of where cooperation clearly yielded better results than competition? Like stuff on the scale of the wealth of nations, and not little hippie co-ops?

Sure. The USA. 50 states have to cooperate to make a federation.

States as individuals must compete for resources. When they cooperate, resources are better utilized and contribute to the higher overall wealth of all.
post #171 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by ijoyner View Post

Sure. The USA. 50 states have to cooperate to make a federation.

States as individuals must compete for resources. When they cooperate, resources are better utilized and contribute to the higher overall wealth of all.

But the US as a whole competes with other nations.

It is like saying members of a sports team cooperate. Yes they do, but they do so because as a team they can better compete against other teams and it is that competition against other teams that motivates them. Every team tries to become better so they win. Without that competition, where would the motivation be? If winning or losing didn't matter, why even bother turning up?
post #172 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

But the US as a whole competes with other nations.

It is like saying members of a sports team cooperate. Yes they do, but they do so because as a team they can better compete against other teams and it is that competition against other teams that motivates them. Every team tries to become better so they win. Without that competition, where would the motivation be? If winning or losing didn't matter, why even bother turning up?

Without the cooperation of the states you would hardly be in a position to compete. And the US also cooperates with a lot of other countries.

The sporting analogy makes sport look pretty pointless, which it is - just a way of keeping people busy without actually accomplishing anything. The opium of the masses.

The orchestral analogy is better. Maybe the players are competing with the difficulty of being able to play an entire difficult piece of music. When they succeed, this gives the audience a thrill. Are they competing with the audience. No.

There are lots of examples of synergistic systems. Competition is not the only motivation in life and is often negative. Competition must be controlled and regulated, even if competition itself is to survive. Thus the Sherman act.

Yes, we can play games for enjoyable competition, but that too is controlling competition. We cooperate on the rules.

Uncontrolled, competition just becomes a negative force. It combines with emotions such as jealousy and hate. This is then used (particularly by politicians) as fear, fear of the different and unknown. These are aspects of the lower nature. Cooperation arises from the higher nature of man stimulated by higher understanding and motivations.

Sure some people, as I have said are only motivated by competition, but don't think that applies to all, or that it even applies all the time to those who are, or that those who largely aren't are never affected by competition. As has been said again and again here, it is not the only factor in life.
post #173 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You're living in a fantasy world if you think Flash apps will have any significant success in the App Store. They won't, and talented developers won't be using it to develop apps.

That's a bit of a bold claim. Personally I hate developing in flash but other people have created really amazing things with it. As the general user won't be able to tell if an app is made using flash or not, how will anyone ever be able to tell?
post #174 of 175
The following excerpt is from The Philosopher's Zone:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopher...07/1923237.htm

Alan Saunders: John, let's turn to the modern case for the free market, and this turns on an intellectual construct called the ideal market. What is that, and why is it ideal?

John Wright: Well, it's a rather complex notion, but it's composed of a number of different elements. Roughly the idea is that in an ideal market all producers are competing against each other, they're trying to produce the best quality products as efficiently as possible, and in an ideal market there are no obstacles to them doing this, or nothing preventing this process of companies finding the best, the most efficient way of producing goods that the public wants. So that for example, in an ideal market, there would be no monopolies. If you've got a monopoly, that is, just one company producing all the goods of a particular type, say televisions or something like that, and there's no competition, then if there's no competition there's sort of not really that much stopping the company from offering the televisions for sale at a higher price. And so if you want to maximise the overall benefits to the community, that is getting high quality televisions at a lower cost, then there'll need to be no monopolies.

Some other aspects of the ideal market is that there are no public goods. Now what does that mean? Well, the notion of a public good is a fairly complex notion but it contains two components. One component is the idea of it being, in the terminology of economists, non-excludable. Well what does that mean? Well it means that something is non-excludable if you can't stop a person gaining the benefit from it. Now an example of this would be a lighthouse. Suppose there's a lighthouse up on a cliff somewhere, and it's shining out, telling boats there's rocks around here so stay away, there's no way you can stop a passing ship from seeing the lighthouse. This means it would be very difficult for example, for a private company to make a profit building lighthouses and offering the service for sale, because anybody can see the light whether they've paid the fee or not.

Now goods that have this feature that you can't stop a person from gaining the benefit of them, are called non-excludable.

There's also another feature: public goods are non-rival. Now what does that mean? Well, suppose I go into a canteen or something at lunchtime and there's only one hamburger left, and there's two people in the shop, me and someone else. Only one of us can have the hamburger. If I buy the hamburger and eat it, that stops the other person from eating that same hamburger. A hamburger is a rival good. One person's consuming it does stop another person from consuming it, but a lighthouse is not like that. Lighthouses are an example of a non-rival good. So are things like for example works of art, one person looking at a painting doesn't stop another person from looking at a painting.

=============

There is also an interesting session on the illusion of choice (which is a by-product of competition):

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopher...10/2991617.htm
post #175 of 175
A couple of "Thoughts of the Day" from a guru in Rishikesh (where the Beatles went) have come to me in the last two days which are relevant:

"EFFICIENCY MEANS, MORE OUTPUT WITH LESS INPUT, IN TERMS OF TIME, ENERGY AND MONEY."

and

"JUST AS MOTH GNAWS A GARMENT, SO DO ENVY AND JEALOUSY CONSUME THE PERSON. IT IS MOST ANTISOCIAL PASSION OF THE HUMAN NATURE."

Evaluate competition wrt these thoughts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple no longer banning third-party iOS development tools