I'm using iA Writer app with iCloud syncing with no issue whatsoever. I'm sure there'll be improvement on Core Data in the future and only 4 people working on it doesn't give a confidence, but that article seems to look at it only from the negative angle.
The article describes a real issue that exists, one that is stymieing some of us in the development community. We are not getting a clear message on what Apple is doing about this. So doesn't it make sure it would sound negative?
Having said this, I am not convinced about how many people at Apple are really working on it. But the issue is communication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
That article is so biased though. It goes on and on about the problems with "Core Data" syncing and uses it as a gigantic apology for developers who still haven't implemented iCloud support. It's so much the apology piece that I wouldn't be surprised if a few "friend/developers" of the author practically actually goaded him into writing it.
At the same time they mention that:
- "Document Syncing" (as opposed to "Core Data syncing") works fine
- Apple uses Document Syncing instead of Core Data syncing
- most users are looking for Document Syncing.
- Drop Box *only* does Document Syncing
- most apps that could benefit from using the cloud use Document Syncing
So, yeah, "Core Data" (database) syncing, which no one on earth has really got to work well ever, is still having problems, but that has virtually *nothing* to do with why developers always implement DropBox support, but balk at doing iCloud support.
The article is just a gigantic defence against something no one is being accused of, a complaint about a product that no one is asking the developers to use, and generally just a fake argument all round.
I am tempted to explain this to you in terms you might understand, because you clearly don't appreciate what document sharing really means. But it is pointless because your knee jerk reaction is to use an avalanche of general arguments to attempt to overwhelm any discussion you perceive as anti-Apple. You repeat the same arguments (sometimes wrong, sometimes right but also entirely one-sided) on multiple sites, under the misguided notion that if you yell hard enough, often enough, it will drown everything else out and $AAPL will return to its halcyon high.
The article describes a real issue that exists, one that is stymieing some of us in the development community. We are not getting a clear message on what Apple is doing about this. So doesn't it make sure it would sound negative?
Having said this, I am not convinced about how many people at Apple are really working on it. But the issue is communication.
I am tempted to explain this to you in terms you might understand, because you clearly don't appreciate what document sharing really means. But it is pointless because your knee jerk reaction is to use an avalanche of general arguments to attempt to overwhelm any discussion you perceive as anti-Apple. You repeat the same arguments (sometimes wrong, sometimes right but also entirely one-sided) on multiple sites, under the misguided notion that if you yell hard enough, often enough, it will drown everything else out and $AAPL will return to its halcyon high.
I won't waste my time.
But I would like to hear it. This is interesting because from a user perspective the debate seems over our heads but if you can actually clarify it for me that would be great.
I'm not being sarcastic I really want to understand this from a developer's perspective.
I am tempted to explain this to you in terms you might understand, because you clearly don't appreciate what document sharing really means. But it is pointless because your knee jerk reaction is to use an avalanche of general arguments to attempt to overwhelm any discussion you perceive as anti-Apple. You repeat the same arguments (sometimes wrong, sometimes right but also entirely one-sided) on multiple sites, under the misguided notion that if you yell hard enough, often enough, it will drown everything else out and $AAPL will return to its halcyon high.
I won't waste my time.
Riiiiight. Let me paraphrase your response:
"I *have* an rebuttal, but I'm not going to bother with it because you're (me) too stupid, and BTW .. (insert various personal attacks that have no bearing on the subject)."
The funny thing is that if I even intimate that someone is a jerk or "make it personal" I get attacked and I get a reprimand right away, yet "ankleskater" gets to shit all over me on a regular basis and the "moderators" don't do anything to him.
For the record, while yes ... I use colloquialisms and "regular" language (for the sake of clarity), that doesn't mean I don't understand the issue.
Every single thing I said was absolutely true. There are two main ways to sync data using iCloud ("Document Sync" and "Core Data Sync"). These are terms I got from the very article you were posting about. It is also true that Apple uses (primarily) the document sync method and that most apps and most users are really only asking for that. The article therefore does actually spend almost it's entire length going on about a problem that isn't really central to the issue of adding iCloud support to apps. There isn't any other rational interpretation.
IMO the article in question is an apologist rant, because it defends the developers against criticism from users that they aren't implementing iCloud by using an argument about something ("Core Data Sync"), that is irrelevant to the type of support the users are asking for.
If Apple could fix the sync issues described therein, there could be a flood of 3rd party support for iCloud. Then imagine Apple not just leading the pack in cloud services but truly, truly leaving everyone else in the dust.
Yes. Using iCloud Core Data sync is a life-sucking experience.
There are better accounts of this than the Verge article:
But I would like to hear it. This is interesting because from a user perspective the debate seems over our heads but if you can actually clarify it for me that would be great.
I'm not being sarcastic I really want to understand this from a developer's perspective.
So would I. I personally couldn't explain it, regardless of the audience, without writing a book chapter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Every single thing I said was absolutely true. There are two main ways to sync data using iCloud ("Document Sync" and "Core Data Sync"). These are terms I got from the very article you were posting about. It is also true that Apple uses (primarily) the document sync method and that most apps and most users are really only asking for that. The article therefore does actually spend almost it's entire length going on about a problem that isn't really central to the issue of adding iCloud support to apps. There isn't any other rational interpretation.
I sincerely disagree. You seem to be suggesting that document syncing and core data syncing are swappable alternatives. Not so at all. The problem is indeed central to adding iCloud support to apps. But it is not a case of "hmmm, let me choose one of two sync methods". Not every app is equal. Not every app is like DropBox. Not every development firm is equal. Not every company has DropBox's resources.
Core Data is NOT a method of syncing. In technical terms, it is a object graph and persistence framework derived from the model developed for NeXT, and is used in Mac OSX as well as iOS. In lay terms, it is a system for managing the application, including its data. The Core Data framework makes a developer's job so, so much simpler (to repeat, it is not just for iCloud syncing). I'd guess 50%-75% of iOS developers use the Core Data framework, particularly if they do not deploy the same app on Android. But something about its iCloud syncing functionality is broken. As implied above, Apple is very quiet on this issue (at least to small developers) and this is frustrating.
I am not capable of explaining it any better without writing a book chapter, and will leave it in the hands of someone else with better didactic skills.
Comments
Originally Posted by macinthe408
So, will this mean that iCloud won't suck ass in the near future?
Given that the near future has been around for roughly a year, yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
I'm using iA Writer app with iCloud syncing with no issue whatsoever. I'm sure there'll be improvement on Core Data in the future and only 4 people working on it doesn't give a confidence, but that article seems to look at it only from the negative angle.
The article describes a real issue that exists, one that is stymieing some of us in the development community. We are not getting a clear message on what Apple is doing about this. So doesn't it make sure it would sound negative?
Having said this, I am not convinced about how many people at Apple are really working on it. But the issue is communication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
That article is so biased though. It goes on and on about the problems with "Core Data" syncing and uses it as a gigantic apology for developers who still haven't implemented iCloud support. It's so much the apology piece that I wouldn't be surprised if a few "friend/developers" of the author practically actually goaded him into writing it.
At the same time they mention that:
- "Document Syncing" (as opposed to "Core Data syncing") works fine
- Apple uses Document Syncing instead of Core Data syncing
- most users are looking for Document Syncing.
- Drop Box *only* does Document Syncing
- most apps that could benefit from using the cloud use Document Syncing
So, yeah, "Core Data" (database) syncing, which no one on earth has really got to work well ever, is still having problems, but that has virtually *nothing* to do with why developers always implement DropBox support, but balk at doing iCloud support.
The article is just a gigantic defence against something no one is being accused of, a complaint about a product that no one is asking the developers to use, and generally just a fake argument all round.
I am tempted to explain this to you in terms you might understand, because you clearly don't appreciate what document sharing really means. But it is pointless because your knee jerk reaction is to use an avalanche of general arguments to attempt to overwhelm any discussion you perceive as anti-Apple. You repeat the same arguments (sometimes wrong, sometimes right but also entirely one-sided) on multiple sites, under the misguided notion that if you yell hard enough, often enough, it will drown everything else out and $AAPL will return to its halcyon high.
I won't waste my time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
The article describes a real issue that exists, one that is stymieing some of us in the development community. We are not getting a clear message on what Apple is doing about this. So doesn't it make sure it would sound negative?
Having said this, I am not convinced about how many people at Apple are really working on it. But the issue is communication.
I am tempted to explain this to you in terms you might understand, because you clearly don't appreciate what document sharing really means. But it is pointless because your knee jerk reaction is to use an avalanche of general arguments to attempt to overwhelm any discussion you perceive as anti-Apple. You repeat the same arguments (sometimes wrong, sometimes right but also entirely one-sided) on multiple sites, under the misguided notion that if you yell hard enough, often enough, it will drown everything else out and $AAPL will return to its halcyon high.
I won't waste my time.
But I would like to hear it. This is interesting because from a user perspective the debate seems over our heads but if you can actually clarify it for me that would be great.
I'm not being sarcastic I really want to understand this from a developer's perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
...
I am tempted to explain this to you in terms you might understand, because you clearly don't appreciate what document sharing really means. But it is pointless because your knee jerk reaction is to use an avalanche of general arguments to attempt to overwhelm any discussion you perceive as anti-Apple. You repeat the same arguments (sometimes wrong, sometimes right but also entirely one-sided) on multiple sites, under the misguided notion that if you yell hard enough, often enough, it will drown everything else out and $AAPL will return to its halcyon high.
I won't waste my time.
Riiiiight. Let me paraphrase your response:
"I *have* an rebuttal, but I'm not going to bother with it because you're (me) too stupid, and BTW .. (insert various personal attacks that have no bearing on the subject)."
The funny thing is that if I even intimate that someone is a jerk or "make it personal" I get attacked and I get a reprimand right away, yet "ankleskater" gets to shit all over me on a regular basis and the "moderators" don't do anything to him.
For the record, while yes ... I use colloquialisms and "regular" language (for the sake of clarity), that doesn't mean I don't understand the issue.
Every single thing I said was absolutely true. There are two main ways to sync data using iCloud ("Document Sync" and "Core Data Sync"). These are terms I got from the very article you were posting about. It is also true that Apple uses (primarily) the document sync method and that most apps and most users are really only asking for that. The article therefore does actually spend almost it's entire length going on about a problem that isn't really central to the issue of adding iCloud support to apps. There isn't any other rational interpretation.
IMO the article in question is an apologist rant, because it defends the developers against criticism from users that they aren't implementing iCloud by using an argument about something ("Core Data Sync"), that is irrelevant to the type of support the users are asking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Since Hostess went under, aren't they all contraband now?
We don't think so:
http://www.canadianfavourites.com/Hostess_Twinkies_300g_p/hostess003.htm
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Interesting that this story from The Verge hasn't been picked up by AI: http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/26/4148628/why-doesnt-icloud-just-work
If Apple could fix the sync issues described therein, there could be a flood of 3rd party support for iCloud. Then imagine Apple not just leading the pack in cloud services but truly, truly leaving everyone else in the dust.
Yes. Using iCloud Core Data sync is a life-sucking experience.
There are better accounts of this than the Verge article:
http://inessential.com/2013/03/27/why_developers_shouldnt_use_icloud_sy
http://storify.com/Jury/the-trials-of-icloud
Brent Simmons, an iOS/MacOS dev of some fame, suggests becoming independent of iCloud altogether. Easy for him to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe
But I would like to hear it. This is interesting because from a user perspective the debate seems over our heads but if you can actually clarify it for me that would be great.
I'm not being sarcastic I really want to understand this from a developer's perspective.
So would I. I personally couldn't explain it, regardless of the audience, without writing a book chapter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Every single thing I said was absolutely true. There are two main ways to sync data using iCloud ("Document Sync" and "Core Data Sync"). These are terms I got from the very article you were posting about. It is also true that Apple uses (primarily) the document sync method and that most apps and most users are really only asking for that. The article therefore does actually spend almost it's entire length going on about a problem that isn't really central to the issue of adding iCloud support to apps. There isn't any other rational interpretation.
I sincerely disagree. You seem to be suggesting that document syncing and core data syncing are swappable alternatives. Not so at all. The problem is indeed central to adding iCloud support to apps. But it is not a case of "hmmm, let me choose one of two sync methods". Not every app is equal. Not every app is like DropBox. Not every development firm is equal. Not every company has DropBox's resources.
Core Data is NOT a method of syncing. In technical terms, it is a object graph and persistence framework derived from the model developed for NeXT, and is used in Mac OSX as well as iOS. In lay terms, it is a system for managing the application, including its data. The Core Data framework makes a developer's job so, so much simpler (to repeat, it is not just for iCloud syncing). I'd guess 50%-75% of iOS developers use the Core Data framework, particularly if they do not deploy the same app on Android. But something about its iCloud syncing functionality is broken. As implied above, Apple is very quiet on this issue (at least to small developers) and this is frustrating.
I am not capable of explaining it any better without writing a book chapter, and will leave it in the hands of someone else with better didactic skills.