Not entirely true. People and companies respond to demands.
We currently process credit card sales through a Java based system from our provider. We have two options: Select a "dumb," and minimalist interface intended for those completely oblivious to interfacing with their system, or develop our own system using their Java based technology. The "dumb" interface is exactly what it is, dumb. With Java, we're able to provide sophisticated interfaces, like ordering software online and then once a credit card approval is granted, allow the user to download it instantaneously. WIth the "dumb" method, an e-mail is generated, an individual needs to manually wait for an e-mail from the credit card company clarifying credit card approval, and then, once again manually, initiate an e-mail to the customer telling them how to download software.
The "dumb" method is archaic, time consuming, but it's provided by the provider as a means to allow someone to at least provide service, but certainly in a not-so-timely manner.
I should add, this service is not some archaic or unknown service provider for credit card processing, it's one of the biggest providers in the world. I didn't invent the system, that's what they've given us to deal with.
Our options, as of this announcement, are as follows:
- Wait for a third party to develop a Java suitable for OS X, and just hope one comes.
- Switch to alternate systems that will support the existing regime.
- Adapt a different provider, one that's compatible with Apple (is there one???? I don't think so!)
Item 1. is a crap shoot at best. Item 3. likely doesn't exist. Item 2. is in reality, the only solution, meaning if you want to use Apple systems for any serious sort of work, then get off the crack pipe...it ain't going to happen.
Apple and Steve Jobs have a long standing history of remarkable successes, but they also have a history of remarkable failures. For example, just exactly how is it that a system using a much more sophisticated processor and GUI ended up losing a battle for dominance to a system based on a CPU that had to segment memory addresses and a user interface that looked like a terminal interface to a mainframe computer? That's kind of like a finely tuned Ferrari losing a race to an old VW beetle.
I put this decision in the same category, and it worries me extensively because of Steve Jobs own words [I paraphrase]
"This is all anyone needs...people don't need 'real' computers anymore"
in reference to the iPad.
There's something wrong here in that Apple seems to be misinterpreting, or not caring about users that use their units for something a wee bit more sophisticated than using checking facebook, e-mail, and watching videos. What I truly fear is that we're watching the core operating system being thrown out, in the long term, in favor of elaborate "idiot boxes" capable of little more than an iPhone.
This is a path I'm not willing to gamble on, and now the search for alternate systems begins. It was a nice, 8 year love affair I had with Apple, but I'm afraid I must go crawling back to my ex-wives, Linux and Solaris (if it's even alive) and beg for forgiveness.