I do not get it. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo do not make it easy to develop for cross game systems. That is because they are competitors. They want developers making games that bring out the best of their specific hardware and OS. That is the nature of being competitive. No one is beating them up. Yet, Apple is somehow supposed to make it easy for developers to make one application that can be used on competing platforms that don't take into consideration Apple's specific API's and hardware and are trying to copy a market Apple created at Apple's expense. Why don't Apple cut the developers a check to finance the development for those other platforms as well and send all the developers on vacation to Disney Land for two weeks as well? Silly.
Apple has always been about controlling the user experience of it's products. It doesn't always succeed, but it aims for excellence. Wanting developers to develop specifically for it's platform is not unreasonable. Further, Apple gave these developers an opportunity that didn't exist before Apple came along. There were no competing market places. Apple provides easy access to it's platform. Apple is also fair in it's pricing model.
Imagine, if Apple pretended it was a recording studio where the goal was to make the bulk of it's money on the sale of downloads. Apple would be taking the lion's share of the profits. Apple's model, however, is designed for it to sell hardware, not make a lot of money on the sale of applications. So, from that perspective you can see that Apple wants applications to perform the best on it's hardware by utilizing what it hopes is better programming environment. It doesn't want developers helping Apple's competitors sell hardware by making the applications perform the same on competing platforms. Apple doesn't make a lot of money on the sale of software. Hardware is where the money is at.
As long as Apple makes development on it's platform easy, helps developers make money, and continues to sell product real developers will stay. Happily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
You can use other development tools to release the same program to several different platforms at the same time without any added work.
It makes the developer more efficient.
Apple does not want this efficiency because it wants to lock in the developer and the consumer to its platform.
I already stopped developing for iPhone a while back so it doesn't affect me. But it affects dozens of other developers, and they will likewise leave the platform.
If Flash is buggy on the Mac, might that have something to do with Apple being more closed, documenting less, having inferior tools and support than Microsoft?
...
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...
Oh, please, not this tired old bit of recycled Adobe propaganda. I guess they decided they'd just sit on their hands until they got direct hardware access? That must be why they've been ignoring their Mac development for the past 10+ years.
Flash on the Mac sucks for one reason and one reason only, because Adobe failed to invest any significant development resources in it. This hardware access thing is just a Big Lie that they are hoping will get repeated often enough until people start to believe it.
1) Just because you can't write good flash, doesn't mean others can't.
2) Programmers seem to do worse with Flash than non-programmers. And there's many tools to deliver Flash -- including functionality built into CS5 that will now only work for every other platform except iPhones and iPad's (consumers lose).
3) If Flash is buggy on the Mac, might that have something to do with Apple being more closed, documenting less, having inferior tools and support than Microsoft? (If Adobe's at fault for every bad app written in Flash, then isn't Apple equally responsible for things they have more control of?)
4) We aren't talking about Flash in the browser, we're talking about AIR; which while ActionScript is a bit of a different animal.
5) It matters what type of App you're creating. I certainly wouldn't try to write the next spreadsheet in Flash. Nor if I had interactive information system like a virtual magazine would I jump to InterfaceBuilder and ObjectiveC. Right tool for the job.
Exactly.
You think all bad Flash Apps are Adobe's fault (and ignore all good ones because they don't fit your model) -- Adobe made the platform it rides on, it is all their fault. Then you blame Adobe for all problems with Flash which rides on Mac OS X, why? Because Apple doesn't make mistakes, so it must be Adobe's fault. Apps that work well on Flash, should be rewritten, even if that wastes months or years and produces and inferior product, because Apple told you so. Are we seeing a pattern?
I on the other hand, care about the solution. I want the best Apps. Given the choice between one that has more features or less, I might go for the one that has more (if they're features I need). Since that's usually the one written in a higher level language, it might be flash. If it's buggy, I'll throw it away, trash it on the forums, and settle for the less full featured one. The market will decide better than you or Steve can for it. That's why capitalist societies outperform command economies.
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.
But it still boils down to Adobe isn't "letting" Adobe. They're letting all developers develop for their platform, and putting in special rules to intentionally EXCLUDE Adobe. Which is the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Frankly, I want Apple to refund the rest of the money for the remainder of my iPhone contract. I bought a 2 year contract under the old terms (that I could run any Apps I wanted -- not just ones that were written in ObjectiveC). If I leased you a car, then changed the interest, or limited the roads/distance you could drive, after the fact, you'd scream bloody murder. Unless Apple said it was OK, then you'd make excuses why you're coming out ahead with a much more limited terms of usage.
It seems you aren't altogether familiar with the tenuous relationship Apple and Adobe have shared over the past decade or so. Did Apple not provide them with the Cocoa APIs either? That would explain why all of their development suites until CS5 didn't use them. I suppose Apple also neglected to offer 64-bit support to application developers until just recently.
Also, I don't know that you completely understand the relationship between Air/Flash Runtime/ActionScript. Maybe you do and I simply fail to understand what you're trying to convey. Regardless, issues regarding Air applications on the Mac are not that rare. But then we must all just be terrible ActionScript programmers.
You also contradict yourself when you say that programmers have worse results than non-programmers. Wouldn't this suggest that ActionScript is a bad language for development on the iPhone? If I use best practices for ActionScript development and the results are poor on only the Mac platform, doesn't that suggest that ActionScript is not a great tool for the Mac? The language is either independent or it isn't. And you don't write "Flash". You write ActionScript that gets compiled into bytecode and executed by the Flash runtime (specifically, the ASVM). Non-programmers use the Flash editor, which is a visual tool for animation and requires little to no programming. But if you want to do anything remotely interesting in Flash you need to marry it to ActionScript.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I hope you enjoy your future development endeavors, whatever platform you land on. And try to remember, we don't have to drink the Apple kool-aid to agree with them. And we don't have to be haters to disagree with them. I am seeing both sides of the coin here and they both have merits. But as a Mac user that has suffered through some piss-poor Adobe releases I am not going to shed a tear for them right now.
I think that these are indeed Apple's intentions. And I think they're the right intentions. But I think the way Apple expresses these intentions in their developer agreement has an unintended consequence.
Apple wants your app to like like this, this is good:
iPhone OS -> UIKit -> Your App
Apple doesn't want your app to look like this, very bad:
iPhone OS -> UIKit -> [Flash, QT, etc.] -> Your App
So far so good. But the unintended consequence of how Apple phrased its agreement is that the following is also forbidden:
iPhone OS -> UIKit -> Your App <- backend implementation details written in a different language
In the last case everything the user sees and interacts with is written exclusively in Objective-C. There's no middleman. But behind the scenes the Objective-C controllers delegate to code written in another programing language that's compiled and linked natively. The final executable is indistinguishable from one that was written exclusively in Objective-C. It probably would even get through Apple's approval process, though it appears to be expressly forbidden.
I explained in a previous post why you might want or need to employ such an app structure. I think such an implementation is in line with Apple's goals for the platform. It's just an uncommon corner case that gets caught in the cross fire.
Section 3.3.1 of Apple's agreement states that "only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs." Apple should clarify what directly linking means. All code is "directly linked" in the final executable. But maybe if your app links with Apple's frameworks, and also links with your own code written in another language, but there are mp dependencies between your code in the other language and Apple's high level frameworks, this would qualify as not directly linking. As long as directly linking with absolutely fundamental libraries like libc is permitted, I'd be okay with this.
This seems logical.
Simple question: What does "written in another language" mean? If "the final executable is indistinguishable from one that was written exclusively in Objective-C." then how would Apple know WHOM or WHAT does the writing of the Objective-C? What or whom does the "writing"?
If the PERSON "writes" the code using a particular language (and I assume that a programmer seldom writes every letter of every line of every piece of code in the program) or the programmer uses a PROGRAM LANGUAGE to "write" the code, both of these to the end result of what was said above - "an indistinguishable executable" - then what is the problem?
I am as far from a programmer as one might get, but it seems to me that Apple's stance is to get "indistinguishable code" that uses their APIs and if they see that type of code come through the approval process, they will have no problem with it.
So, using another "front end" programming language that can "write" indistinguishable code would seem to me to be just fine, especially if the "front end" language was being used for efficiency and not to side-step the eventual fluidity, functionality, stability, etc. of the final product.
I think this is what Apple wants. Nothing in the executable that screws things up. So, they mandate the "writing" of Objective-C code, but does the agreement clearly define WHO/WHAT writes the code?
I'd almost think that some of the other programming languages out there, used by a proficient programmer, can write as good or better code than a programmer who is equally proficient in Objective-C. Am I anywhere near right?
Disclaimer: Obviously written by someone who's entire programming experience was in the late 70's with the famous BASIC "HELLO" program.
Seriously, though, do my arguments contain and weight or validity?
"It probably would even get through Apple's approval process, though it appears to be expressly forbidden."
The only reason Apple has more apps today is that most of the mobile RAD tools in the pipeline aren't shipping yet. Once they do, we can expect to see an explosion of app development.
Ok, but
(a) Suppose Apple manages to stay ahead of the delivery curve on RAD tools, and
(b) No suppose, they are ahead of the curve on mobile devices (iPad).
(c) A 2-3 year lead is a lifetime in software development.
(d) I like the commonality for Mac, iPhone, iPod and iPad SDK development.
Apple makes products and sets the rules for what, and how, apps will appear on/in its products.
A developer who writes something for the iPad or the iPhone does so to make money. So follow Apple's rules and make money.
Don't like the rules? Fine. Develop something for another platform and make money there instead.
Plenty of developers will follow the rules and will make money, and users will enjoy the apps. The developers who play the game will reap the rewards. It's kinda simple.
There's a big difference between 'helps it run' and 'is'. QuickTime is arguably native on both platforms, there is no more or less abstraction on either platform. Yes, carbon could be seen as 'more' of an abstraction, but it's also an abstraction on Mac OS X, it's just not public for win32. Hell, MFC and .NET are abstractions... Cocoa is an abstraction.
Come to think of it, C is an abstraction to assembly which is an abstraction to machine code, which is an abstraction to microcode, which is an abstraction to actual information, which is an abstraction to the physical world.... and i'm sure the physical world is an abstraction of something.
Point is, it's not hypocritical for Apple to target windows however it sees fit, just as it's not hypocritical if Microsoft or whoever wanted to target a Mac, however they see fit. Macs can run pretty much any code you can get to compile on them, legally and without obstruction., including but not limited to WINE. Microsoft's office and msn apps are written using who knows (and who cares) what.
It's only the iPhone OS where this restriction is applied, and for a whole stack of reasons which do not apply to desktop environments, the rules here are different, and they will be applied differently by the different players - and (depending on who you ask) some developers actually think it's a good rule... makes the platform shiny.
You're just pissed because you can't develop in your language or framework of choice, that's perfectly ok, but then you also have the choice of not developing for that platform if it doesn't meet your requirements as a developer. This is actually the norm, and not the exception... Nintendo, Sony, Xbox?? Generally, you get a platform with an environment and you make the most of what it has to offer, if it's not up to scratch or if it doesn't match your ideals, you put it low on your list of priorities.
Wrong. QuickTime X is Cocoa. QuickTime Windows is Carbon.
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).
Thus if I already have a solution developed or partly developed (as the Demo implies), and I have to throw that out, and start over, in a lower level language and worse tools for the job -- what happens? It will take far more time to get it out. Nature is to rush and drop features to get it to market as fast as possible (which is still much slower than the alternative). But because it is newer, more rushes, lower level code, more lines to do the same thing, it'll have more bugs to make up for it. This is lose-lose-lose for the developer. But it's OK, because the fanboys are willing to give up a lot because "The Steve" told them it was better.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
While I appreciate Apple's new policy and can easily agree that it is in their strategic best interests, at least in addressing 90% of their market, I think this decision kills many long-tail apps, and systems that require multi-platform support.
I am not a programmer/developer; I am a business owner. Say I want to build an app to serve electrical engineers in my office. We have 60% Blackberries and 40% iPhones. Neither set of users has a compelling reason to change handsets. There may be a business case for doing something that supports everyone, but we aren't going to build our business around any single platform. (We too have learned from past mistakes.)
If it doesn't make sense for just us, how about something that serves our entire industry. There are about 50,000 licensed, practicing Professional Electrical Engineers in the US. Selling to 20% of them that may have iPhones and be interested would be an optimistic target: up to 10,000 unit sales!
Well, if you really were a business owner, I'd hope that you wouldn't do such a shoddy market analysis.
The iPhone family was responsible for 64% of mobile internet use - so iPhone users are apparently using their phones for a lot more than other smart phone users. I don't recall the application purchase rates, but I do know that the iPhone accounted for the majority of applications purchased, as well. So, you'd look at that and say "if I want to sell lots of apps, I need to include the iPhone".
Then, you'd consider a number of options. For example, you could create a web page that would do the job using html - which would work for all users. Or you could create separate apps for the iPhone and other platforms. Or you could develop only for the iPhone - since none of the other apps are seeing much action in terms of people buying apps.
A smart business owner would most certainly NOT do what you're suggesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo
I'll tell you what I'm not willing to risk: spending a year or more of my life working on a app for the iPhone only to have Apple tell me I can't deploy it when I'm all done.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo
And, as this video shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwFbwHaP5tE There is the potential for some really really cool stuff for the iPad platform being built with Adobe technologies. If I had an iPad, I'd be demanding that Apple give me access to this content.
That's fine. I'm always happy to see cool stuff done on the iPad - and I'm sure Apple is, too. All Adobe has to do is follow the SDK rules that they agreed to when they became a developer and we'll get to use that cool stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim
3) If Flash is buggy on the Mac, might that have something to do with Apple being more closed, documenting less, having inferior tools and support than Microsoft? (If Adobe's at fault for every bad app written in Flash, then isn't Apple equally responsible for things they have more control of?)
This is, of course, BS. Adobe has access to the same tools that everyone else does. For that matter, other Adobe apps don't have the same problem. Photoshop can manipulate every pixel of multi MB files on my system in fractions of a second. Yet Flash eats up every bit of CPU available and brings my system to a screeching halt just to show a menu? If the tools to write a good app aren't there, why is it that everyone else (including other departments in Adobe) can do it, but the Adobe Flash group can't?
More importantly, if it's all Apple's fault, why is it that there is NO FULL SCALE Flash for ANY mobile platform. None. Even the vaunted Flash 10.1 (which isn't out and no one knows when it will be) offers a subset of Flash functionality, eats CPU cycles, shortens battery life, and will only work on a tiny fraction of smart phones - even if it does get released some day. Flash just doesn't work for mobile phones - and the entire industry realizes that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
There are now 185,000 apps in the app store. With that many apps and proportionately that many developers, I think Apple is just thinking it's really time now to focus on quality (of apps & developers) not quantity.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
Actually, no, if Microsoft did this, everyone would be up in arms. The truth is that Microsoft could easily block iTunes by saying it uses non-standard APIs. But Microsoft doesn't do this, because they aren't that evil.
Or maybe they simply have a different business plan (even if what you say is true)? Not to mention, of course, that Microsoft is bound by different rules since they have been found to have a monopoly in PC operating systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruibjr
I think Jobs is forgetting that we, programmers will make or break the iPhone and the iPad.
Let me summarize the whole thing:
* Can I code in C? Yes.
* Do I want to? No.
It is that simple.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankzero
I think Apple totally shits itself here! They are wrong, ignorant or just plain uninformed! Objective-C is an old and dated language (despite late improvements), not the sharpest tool in the box and APIs (in this case iPhone 4's) can perfectly transcend most language and platform environments without any impedance added between developer and platform. Jobs, please take a hike!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasein
I have a simple question: As a developer, why would I want to use anything other than the development kit that Apple itself has developed? I don't mean this rhetorically.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
I think Apple's motto of "do no evil" is flushed down the toilet at this point.
Apple doesn't have such a motto. If you are that badly misinformed, you really shouldn't be discussing the topic at all.
I don't know Apple's motto, but it would undoubtedly be something about providing insanely great user experience - which is why they made the decision they made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I understand the reasoning behind blocking interpreters to some extent but native code that uses other APIs is a bit crazy because that could mean all sorts of useful apps. If it blocks the Unity 3D engine, there's no benefit to that at all. Just download this game demo:
Where's the quality problems? Nowhere to be seen. Until XCode actually offers what IDE's like that can offer then the argument has no basis. The purpose has to be to force these devs to drop C# and move to Obj-C, which can't be used on Windows.
How do you know there are no quality problems? Just because you can view a demo video?
It's a moot point, anyway. Unity's spokesperson says that they believe that the rule does not exclude Unity as a resource.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
This is the same company with $40 billion in cash reserves? This is the same company selling year-old hardware at the same price it was a year ago? The same company that doesn't know how to make a $500 computer? The same company that sells a new product (iPad) with a profit of $250 per unit i.e 100% profit margin.
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.
Apple makes products and sets the rules for what, and how, apps will appear on/in its products.
A developer who writes something for the iPad or the iPhone does so to make money. So follow Apple's rules and make money.
Don't like the rules? Fine. Develop something for another platform and make money there instead.
Plenty of developers will follow the rules and will make money, and users will enjoy the apps. The developers who play the game will reap the rewards. It's kinda simple.
This isn't to single you out at all, but only because you are the most recent poster using the argument.
Is there any line that Apple could cross that would take it beyond "who cares"? Beyond a response of "the market will decide when that line is crossed", I really do wonder if the lines exists. Certainly there are many that will never see any action Apple makes as being wrong. If it is successful, that is proof enough that it was right. If is not successful, then it was still right because it was Apple platform. So, take success out of the equation, as that isn't a true barometer of right and wrong
That's right. Apple is the big boy on the block now, so that makes the right by default. While one does have the right to complain, you really shouldn't. Only if you have the resources to develop an entire platform on your own do your complaints have any merit. And in that case, you are then a competitor to Apple, so that invalidates your complaints as well. Best to just keep quiet and assume Apple cannot be wrong. Success==right.
Either your a Communist or a wimp, I believe everybody has a right by law to say what he or she believes.
I think this is what Apple wants. Nothing in the executable that screws things up. So, they mandate the "writing" of Objective-C code...
What Apple doesn't want is people using cross-platform development tools where programmers write to a common, intermediate, generic "platform". Objective-C just happens to be the language supported for Mac OS X and iPhone development in the Apple supplied development tools, for developing directly to those platforms.
It's in Apple's business interests to prevent the use of these tools and consequently the commoditization of its platform. Obviously, third-party tool vendors either don't give a damn, as long as they can make money, or, like Adobe, actively wish to commoditize iPhone OS and other mobile platforms so they can make lots of money by controlling how content gets on them: essentially like parasites feeding on a host, more like tapeworm than a bed bug, though.
This isn't to single you out at all, but only because you are the most recent poster using the argument.
Is there any line that Apple could cross that would take it beyond "who cares"? Beyond a response of "the market will decide when that line is crossed", I really do wonder if the lines exists. Certainly there are many that will never see any action Apple makes as being wrong. If it is successful, that is proof enough that it was right. If is not successful, then it was still right because it was Apple platform. So, take success out of the equation, as that isn't a true barometer of right and wrong
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.
Flash on the Mac sucks for one reason and one reason only, because Adobe failed to invest any significant development resources in it. .
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.
This isn't to single you out at all, but only because you are the most recent poster using the argument.
Is there any line that Apple could cross that would take it beyond "who cares"? Beyond a response of "the market will decide when that line is crossed", I really do wonder if the lines exists. Certainly there are many that will never see any action Apple makes as being wrong. If it is successful, that is proof enough that it was right. If is not successful, then it was still right because it was Apple platform. So, take success out of the equation, as that isn't a true barometer of right and wrong
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 we?ll be fine".
Perhaps not such a moot point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
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.
Comments
Apple has always been about controlling the user experience of it's products. It doesn't always succeed, but it aims for excellence. Wanting developers to develop specifically for it's platform is not unreasonable. Further, Apple gave these developers an opportunity that didn't exist before Apple came along. There were no competing market places. Apple provides easy access to it's platform. Apple is also fair in it's pricing model.
Imagine, if Apple pretended it was a recording studio where the goal was to make the bulk of it's money on the sale of downloads. Apple would be taking the lion's share of the profits. Apple's model, however, is designed for it to sell hardware, not make a lot of money on the sale of applications. So, from that perspective you can see that Apple wants applications to perform the best on it's hardware by utilizing what it hopes is better programming environment. It doesn't want developers helping Apple's competitors sell hardware by making the applications perform the same on competing platforms. Apple doesn't make a lot of money on the sale of software. Hardware is where the money is at.
As long as Apple makes development on it's platform easy, helps developers make money, and continues to sell product real developers will stay. Happily.
You can use other development tools to release the same program to several different platforms at the same time without any added work.
It makes the developer more efficient.
Apple does not want this efficiency because it wants to lock in the developer and the consumer to its platform.
I already stopped developing for iPhone a while back so it doesn't affect me. But it affects dozens of other developers, and they will likewise leave the platform.
If Flash is buggy on the Mac, might that have something to do with Apple being more closed, documenting less, having inferior tools and support than Microsoft?
...
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...
Oh, please, not this tired old bit of recycled Adobe propaganda. I guess they decided they'd just sit on their hands until they got direct hardware access? That must be why they've been ignoring their Mac development for the past 10+ years.
Flash on the Mac sucks for one reason and one reason only, because Adobe failed to invest any significant development resources in it. This hardware access thing is just a Big Lie that they are hoping will get repeated often enough until people start to believe it.
Yes! the gall. It's the GALL!!
Now, back to the childish arguments.
Another post filled with valuable insight.
There's a few problems.
1) Just because you can't write good flash, doesn't mean others can't.
2) Programmers seem to do worse with Flash than non-programmers. And there's many tools to deliver Flash -- including functionality built into CS5 that will now only work for every other platform except iPhones and iPad's (consumers lose).
3) If Flash is buggy on the Mac, might that have something to do with Apple being more closed, documenting less, having inferior tools and support than Microsoft? (If Adobe's at fault for every bad app written in Flash, then isn't Apple equally responsible for things they have more control of?)
4) We aren't talking about Flash in the browser, we're talking about AIR; which while ActionScript is a bit of a different animal.
5) It matters what type of App you're creating. I certainly wouldn't try to write the next spreadsheet in Flash. Nor if I had interactive information system like a virtual magazine would I jump to InterfaceBuilder and ObjectiveC. Right tool for the job.
Exactly.
You think all bad Flash Apps are Adobe's fault (and ignore all good ones because they don't fit your model) -- Adobe made the platform it rides on, it is all their fault. Then you blame Adobe for all problems with Flash which rides on Mac OS X, why? Because Apple doesn't make mistakes, so it must be Adobe's fault. Apps that work well on Flash, should be rewritten, even if that wastes months or years and produces and inferior product, because Apple told you so. Are we seeing a pattern?
I on the other hand, care about the solution. I want the best Apps. Given the choice between one that has more features or less, I might go for the one that has more (if they're features I need). Since that's usually the one written in a higher level language, it might be flash. If it's buggy, I'll throw it away, trash it on the forums, and settle for the less full featured one. The market will decide better than you or Steve can for it. That's why capitalist societies outperform command economies.
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.
But it still boils down to Adobe isn't "letting" Adobe. They're letting all developers develop for their platform, and putting in special rules to intentionally EXCLUDE Adobe. Which is the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Frankly, I want Apple to refund the rest of the money for the remainder of my iPhone contract. I bought a 2 year contract under the old terms (that I could run any Apps I wanted -- not just ones that were written in ObjectiveC). If I leased you a car, then changed the interest, or limited the roads/distance you could drive, after the fact, you'd scream bloody murder. Unless Apple said it was OK, then you'd make excuses why you're coming out ahead with a much more limited terms of usage.
It seems you aren't altogether familiar with the tenuous relationship Apple and Adobe have shared over the past decade or so. Did Apple not provide them with the Cocoa APIs either? That would explain why all of their development suites until CS5 didn't use them. I suppose Apple also neglected to offer 64-bit support to application developers until just recently.
Also, I don't know that you completely understand the relationship between Air/Flash Runtime/ActionScript. Maybe you do and I simply fail to understand what you're trying to convey. Regardless, issues regarding Air applications on the Mac are not that rare. But then we must all just be terrible ActionScript programmers.
You also contradict yourself when you say that programmers have worse results than non-programmers. Wouldn't this suggest that ActionScript is a bad language for development on the iPhone? If I use best practices for ActionScript development and the results are poor on only the Mac platform, doesn't that suggest that ActionScript is not a great tool for the Mac? The language is either independent or it isn't. And you don't write "Flash". You write ActionScript that gets compiled into bytecode and executed by the Flash runtime (specifically, the ASVM). Non-programmers use the Flash editor, which is a visual tool for animation and requires little to no programming. But if you want to do anything remotely interesting in Flash you need to marry it to ActionScript.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I hope you enjoy your future development endeavors, whatever platform you land on. And try to remember, we don't have to drink the Apple kool-aid to agree with them. And we don't have to be haters to disagree with them. I am seeing both sides of the coin here and they both have merits. But as a Mac user that has suffered through some piss-poor Adobe releases I am not going to shed a tear for them right now.
No, it's fairly clear to most that the decision is to lock developers in.
(Still reading at post 82, but wanted to comment anyway.)
The argument seems to be by a lot of people that this will send developers AWAY, not lock them in.
I think that these are indeed Apple's intentions. And I think they're the right intentions. But I think the way Apple expresses these intentions in their developer agreement has an unintended consequence.
Apple wants your app to like like this, this is good:
iPhone OS -> UIKit -> Your App
Apple doesn't want your app to look like this, very bad:
iPhone OS -> UIKit -> [Flash, QT, etc.] -> Your App
So far so good. But the unintended consequence of how Apple phrased its agreement is that the following is also forbidden:
iPhone OS -> UIKit -> Your App <- backend implementation details written in a different language
In the last case everything the user sees and interacts with is written exclusively in Objective-C. There's no middleman. But behind the scenes the Objective-C controllers delegate to code written in another programing language that's compiled and linked natively. The final executable is indistinguishable from one that was written exclusively in Objective-C. It probably would even get through Apple's approval process, though it appears to be expressly forbidden.
I explained in a previous post why you might want or need to employ such an app structure. I think such an implementation is in line with Apple's goals for the platform. It's just an uncommon corner case that gets caught in the cross fire.
Section 3.3.1 of Apple's agreement states that "only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs." Apple should clarify what directly linking means. All code is "directly linked" in the final executable. But maybe if your app links with Apple's frameworks, and also links with your own code written in another language, but there are mp dependencies between your code in the other language and Apple's high level frameworks, this would qualify as not directly linking. As long as directly linking with absolutely fundamental libraries like libc is permitted, I'd be okay with this.
This seems logical.
Simple question: What does "written in another language" mean? If "the final executable is indistinguishable from one that was written exclusively in Objective-C." then how would Apple know WHOM or WHAT does the writing of the Objective-C? What or whom does the "writing"?
If the PERSON "writes" the code using a particular language (and I assume that a programmer seldom writes every letter of every line of every piece of code in the program) or the programmer uses a PROGRAM LANGUAGE to "write" the code, both of these to the end result of what was said above - "an indistinguishable executable" - then what is the problem?
I am as far from a programmer as one might get, but it seems to me that Apple's stance is to get "indistinguishable code" that uses their APIs and if they see that type of code come through the approval process, they will have no problem with it.
So, using another "front end" programming language that can "write" indistinguishable code would seem to me to be just fine, especially if the "front end" language was being used for efficiency and not to side-step the eventual fluidity, functionality, stability, etc. of the final product.
I think this is what Apple wants. Nothing in the executable that screws things up. So, they mandate the "writing" of Objective-C code, but does the agreement clearly define WHO/WHAT writes the code?
I'd almost think that some of the other programming languages out there, used by a proficient programmer, can write as good or better code than a programmer who is equally proficient in Objective-C. Am I anywhere near right?
Disclaimer: Obviously written by someone who's entire programming experience was in the late 70's with the famous BASIC "HELLO" program.
Seriously, though, do my arguments contain and weight or validity?
"It probably would even get through Apple's approval process, though it appears to be expressly forbidden."
It boils down to one: productivity.
The only reason Apple has more apps today is that most of the mobile RAD tools in the pipeline aren't shipping yet. Once they do, we can expect to see an explosion of app development.
Ok, but
(a) Suppose Apple manages to stay ahead of the delivery curve on RAD tools, and
(b) No suppose, they are ahead of the curve on mobile devices (iPad).
(c) A 2-3 year lead is a lifetime in software development.
(d) I like the commonality for Mac, iPhone, iPod and iPad SDK development.
A developer who writes something for the iPad or the iPhone does so to make money. So follow Apple's rules and make money.
Don't like the rules? Fine. Develop something for another platform and make money there instead.
Plenty of developers will follow the rules and will make money, and users will enjoy the apps. The developers who play the game will reap the rewards. It's kinda simple.
There's a big difference between 'helps it run' and 'is'. QuickTime is arguably native on both platforms, there is no more or less abstraction on either platform. Yes, carbon could be seen as 'more' of an abstraction, but it's also an abstraction on Mac OS X, it's just not public for win32. Hell, MFC and .NET are abstractions... Cocoa is an abstraction.
Come to think of it, C is an abstraction to assembly which is an abstraction to machine code, which is an abstraction to microcode, which is an abstraction to actual information, which is an abstraction to the physical world.... and i'm sure the physical world is an abstraction of something.
Point is, it's not hypocritical for Apple to target windows however it sees fit, just as it's not hypocritical if Microsoft or whoever wanted to target a Mac, however they see fit. Macs can run pretty much any code you can get to compile on them, legally and without obstruction., including but not limited to WINE. Microsoft's office and msn apps are written using who knows (and who cares) what.
It's only the iPhone OS where this restriction is applied, and for a whole stack of reasons which do not apply to desktop environments, the rules here are different, and they will be applied differently by the different players - and (depending on who you ask) some developers actually think it's a good rule... makes the platform shiny.
You're just pissed because you can't develop in your language or framework of choice, that's perfectly ok, but then you also have the choice of not developing for that platform if it doesn't meet your requirements as a developer. This is actually the norm, and not the exception... Nintendo, Sony, Xbox?? Generally, you get a platform with an environment and you make the most of what it has to offer, if it's not up to scratch or if it doesn't match your ideals, you put it low on your list of priorities.
Wrong. QuickTime X is Cocoa. QuickTime Windows is Carbon.
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).
Thus if I already have a solution developed or partly developed (as the Demo implies), and I have to throw that out, and start over, in a lower level language and worse tools for the job -- what happens? It will take far more time to get it out. Nature is to rush and drop features to get it to market as fast as possible (which is still much slower than the alternative). But because it is newer, more rushes, lower level code, more lines to do the same thing, it'll have more bugs to make up for it. This is lose-lose-lose for the developer. But it's OK, because the fanboys are willing to give up a lot because "The Steve" told them it was better.
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.
While I appreciate Apple's new policy and can easily agree that it is in their strategic best interests, at least in addressing 90% of their market, I think this decision kills many long-tail apps, and systems that require multi-platform support.
I am not a programmer/developer; I am a business owner. Say I want to build an app to serve electrical engineers in my office. We have 60% Blackberries and 40% iPhones. Neither set of users has a compelling reason to change handsets. There may be a business case for doing something that supports everyone, but we aren't going to build our business around any single platform. (We too have learned from past mistakes.)
If it doesn't make sense for just us, how about something that serves our entire industry. There are about 50,000 licensed, practicing Professional Electrical Engineers in the US. Selling to 20% of them that may have iPhones and be interested would be an optimistic target: up to 10,000 unit sales!
Well, if you really were a business owner, I'd hope that you wouldn't do such a shoddy market analysis.
The iPhone family was responsible for 64% of mobile internet use - so iPhone users are apparently using their phones for a lot more than other smart phone users. I don't recall the application purchase rates, but I do know that the iPhone accounted for the majority of applications purchased, as well. So, you'd look at that and say "if I want to sell lots of apps, I need to include the iPhone".
Then, you'd consider a number of options. For example, you could create a web page that would do the job using html - which would work for all users. Or you could create separate apps for the iPhone and other platforms. Or you could develop only for the iPhone - since none of the other apps are seeing much action in terms of people buying apps.
A smart business owner would most certainly NOT do what you're suggesting.
I'll tell you what I'm not willing to risk: spending a year or more of my life working on a app for the iPhone only to have Apple tell me I can't deploy it when I'm all done.
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.
And, as this video shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwFbwHaP5tE There is the potential for some really really cool stuff for the iPad platform being built with Adobe technologies. If I had an iPad, I'd be demanding that Apple give me access to this content.
That's fine. I'm always happy to see cool stuff done on the iPad - and I'm sure Apple is, too. All Adobe has to do is follow the SDK rules that they agreed to when they became a developer and we'll get to use that cool stuff.
3) If Flash is buggy on the Mac, might that have something to do with Apple being more closed, documenting less, having inferior tools and support than Microsoft? (If Adobe's at fault for every bad app written in Flash, then isn't Apple equally responsible for things they have more control of?)
This is, of course, BS. Adobe has access to the same tools that everyone else does. For that matter, other Adobe apps don't have the same problem. Photoshop can manipulate every pixel of multi MB files on my system in fractions of a second. Yet Flash eats up every bit of CPU available and brings my system to a screeching halt just to show a menu? If the tools to write a good app aren't there, why is it that everyone else (including other departments in Adobe) can do it, but the Adobe Flash group can't?
More importantly, if it's all Apple's fault, why is it that there is NO FULL SCALE Flash for ANY mobile platform. None. Even the vaunted Flash 10.1 (which isn't out and no one knows when it will be) offers a subset of Flash functionality, eats CPU cycles, shortens battery life, and will only work on a tiny fraction of smart phones - even if it does get released some day. Flash just doesn't work for mobile phones - and the entire industry realizes that.
There are now 185,000 apps in the app store. With that many apps and proportionately that many developers, I think Apple is just thinking it's really time now to focus on quality (of apps & developers) not quantity.
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.
Actually, no, if Microsoft did this, everyone would be up in arms. The truth is that Microsoft could easily block iTunes by saying it uses non-standard APIs. But Microsoft doesn't do this, because they aren't that evil.
Or maybe they simply have a different business plan (even if what you say is true)? Not to mention, of course, that Microsoft is bound by different rules since they have been found to have a monopoly in PC operating systems.
I think Jobs is forgetting that we, programmers will make or break the iPhone and the iPad.
Let me summarize the whole thing:
* Can I code in C? Yes.
* Do I want to? No.
It is that simple.
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.
I think Apple totally shits itself here! They are wrong, ignorant or just plain uninformed! Objective-C is an old and dated language (despite late improvements), not the sharpest tool in the box and APIs (in this case iPhone 4's) can perfectly transcend most language and platform environments without any impedance added between developer and platform. Jobs, please take a hike!
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.
I have a simple question: As a developer, why would I want to use anything other than the development kit that Apple itself has developed? I don't mean this rhetorically.
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.
I think Apple's motto of "do no evil" is flushed down the toilet at this point.
Apple doesn't have such a motto. If you are that badly misinformed, you really shouldn't be discussing the topic at all.
I don't know Apple's motto, but it would undoubtedly be something about providing insanely great user experience - which is why they made the decision they made.
I understand the reasoning behind blocking interpreters to some extent but native code that uses other APIs is a bit crazy because that could mean all sorts of useful apps. If it blocks the Unity 3D engine, there's no benefit to that at all. Just download this game demo:
http://unity3d.com/gallery/live-demos/avert-fate
Where's the quality problems? Nowhere to be seen. Until XCode actually offers what IDE's like that can offer then the argument has no basis. The purpose has to be to force these devs to drop C# and move to Obj-C, which can't be used on Windows.
How do you know there are no quality problems? Just because you can view a demo video?
It's a moot point, anyway. Unity's spokesperson says that they believe that the rule does not exclude Unity as a resource.
This is the same company with $40 billion in cash reserves? This is the same company selling year-old hardware at the same price it was a year ago? The same company that doesn't know how to make a $500 computer? The same company that sells a new product (iPad) with a profit of $250 per unit i.e 100% profit margin.
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.
Apple makes products and sets the rules for what, and how, apps will appear on/in its products.
A developer who writes something for the iPad or the iPhone does so to make money. So follow Apple's rules and make money.
Don't like the rules? Fine. Develop something for another platform and make money there instead.
Plenty of developers will follow the rules and will make money, and users will enjoy the apps. The developers who play the game will reap the rewards. It's kinda simple.
This isn't to single you out at all, but only because you are the most recent poster using the argument.
Is there any line that Apple could cross that would take it beyond "who cares"? Beyond a response of "the market will decide when that line is crossed", I really do wonder if the lines exists. Certainly there are many that will never see any action Apple makes as being wrong. If it is successful, that is proof enough that it was right. If is not successful, then it was still right because it was Apple platform. So, take success out of the equation, as that isn't a true barometer of right and wrong
I think Jobs is forgetting that we, programmers will make or break the iPhone and the iPad.
Let me summarize the whole thing:
* Can I code in C? Yes.
* Do I want to? No.
It is that simple.
Cheers,
Rui
Can you write C++? ObjC? ObjC++?
If you can't then you were never going to be a Windows, OS X or Linux native application developer.
You were going to be a scripting language developer for Web Apps or interpreted language developer for Ruby, Python or others.
Now if you say you can write in Python or Ruby, but not ObjC then I say you're full of it.
That's right. Apple is the big boy on the block now, so that makes the right by default. While one does have the right to complain, you really shouldn't. Only if you have the resources to develop an entire platform on your own do your complaints have any merit. And in that case, you are then a competitor to Apple, so that invalidates your complaints as well. Best to just keep quiet and assume Apple cannot be wrong. Success==right.
Either your a Communist or a wimp, I believe everybody has a right by law to say what he or she believes.
I think this is what Apple wants. Nothing in the executable that screws things up. So, they mandate the "writing" of Objective-C code...
What Apple doesn't want is people using cross-platform development tools where programmers write to a common, intermediate, generic "platform". Objective-C just happens to be the language supported for Mac OS X and iPhone development in the Apple supplied development tools, for developing directly to those platforms.
It's in Apple's business interests to prevent the use of these tools and consequently the commoditization of its platform. Obviously, third-party tool vendors either don't give a damn, as long as they can make money, or, like Adobe, actively wish to commoditize iPhone OS and other mobile platforms so they can make lots of money by controlling how content gets on them: essentially like parasites feeding on a host, more like tapeworm than a bed bug, though.
This isn't to single you out at all, but only because you are the most recent poster using the argument.
Is there any line that Apple could cross that would take it beyond "who cares"? Beyond a response of "the market will decide when that line is crossed", I really do wonder if the lines exists. Certainly there are many that will never see any action Apple makes as being wrong. If it is successful, that is proof enough that it was right. If is not successful, then it was still right because it was Apple platform. So, take success out of the equation, as that isn't a true barometer of right and wrong
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.
Flash on the Mac sucks for one reason and one reason only, because Adobe failed to invest any significant development resources in it. .
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.
This isn't to single you out at all, but only because you are the most recent poster using the argument.
Is there any line that Apple could cross that would take it beyond "who cares"? Beyond a response of "the market will decide when that line is crossed", I really do wonder if the lines exists. Certainly there are many that will never see any action Apple makes as being wrong. If it is successful, that is proof enough that it was right. If is not successful, then it was still right because it was Apple platform. So, take success out of the equation, as that isn't a true barometer of right and wrong
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 we?ll be fine".
Perhaps not such a moot point.
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.
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.
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.