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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
The app purge had more to do with the material than the quality.
And you know this because.....?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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
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
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
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
Not exactly positive when the CEO, as of yesterday blogged about this with the statement
"Our current best guess is that we?ll 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The app purge had more to do with the material than the quality.
And you know this because.....?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not exactly positive when the CEO, as of yesterday blogged about this with the statement
"Our current best guess is that we?ll be fine".
Perhaps not such a moot point.
Sounds like Unity thinks that they're fine - just as I said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was starting to wonder if "Sue" were posting from an Adobe IP
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.