This would be a horrible move. Silverlight is a terrible, proprietary, patent encumbered, Microsoft technology designed to move Microsoft's illegally obtained desktop monopoly onto the web and non-Microsoft platforms. It is designed to lock developers and consumers into yet another layer of super expensive, proprietary Microsoft technology. No thanks, i will pass.
Actually you can program silverlight with a number of different languages. It's not locked into some proprietary Microsoft language. It's just an alternative to flash that suits some people better, that's all.
What do you think Apple's flash alternative will be? Once you start using it, you'll be locked in. It's the way these kinds of products work.
Either way the odds of Apple suddenly supporting silverlight and not flash in the iphone OS are absolutely slim to none
Both "yes" and "no". Project Builder did, 100% run on Windows. Project Builder is the IDE prior to the rebranding to XCode (well, yeah, it was a little more complex than that, but you get the idea..) Interface Builder ran on Windows too. I have seen/used them both to build Objective-C projects under Windows.
The issue will be that this was back in the halcyon days of NT3.5, so I've no idea what state that code base is now in. But, the answer is, for sure, not an absolute "no".
Debugging could be interesting, as it would pretty much require a fully operational set of Apple frameworks running on Windows. Never mind the incompatibilities. Maybe it will have a minimal Mac OS X install within a Virtual Machine.
Gee, the Mono guys have it working - it can't be THAT hard.
iPhone, that will be in a virtual machine. Mac - well who knows, but a remote debugger is not impossible.
This latter point was exactly the problem with CodeWarrior. It offered an alternate framework that interfered with adoption of native Cocoa APIs. It was a layer between developers and the OS that defined the platform rather than Apple being free to define it. (Sound familiar?) Once Apple made the move to OS X, CodeWarrior had to die so Mac OS X could prosper. Developers had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.
Would VS be less likely to similarly be slow in including new and updated APIs? Or would it use Apple supplied update mechanism so no devs would be dependent on MS to stay current?
This latter point was exactly the problem with CodeWarrior. It offered an alternate framework that interfered with adoption of native Cocoa APIs. It was a layer between developers and the OS that defined the platform rather than Apple being free to define it. (Sound familiar?) Once Apple made the move to OS X, CodeWarrior had to die so Mac OS X could prosper. Developers had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.
Um, I remember it slightly differently. Codewarrior only built PEF executables, I don't think they ever migrated to Mach-o. Metrowerks sold their Intel compiler to a third party. Apple announced their move to Intel. Metrowerks rolled over, got bought up by Freescale (? IIRC) and vanished into a puff of smoke. All their own doing. Their product was tied to PowerPC, and the platform was EOL. They had no Intel compiler*, so would need to rebadge GCC. Their Mac toolset was geared around PEF, and PEF died with the PowerPC.
* their Intel compiler was a pile of crud and only really did PE. I think they used GCC for any ELF based IA32 platforms, certainly did for most things after they started to spread their product range too thinly over emerging platforms like the Mobile Linux IDE they were doing for QTopia etc.
That's just a ignorant statement. So ignorant, I dont even know how to reply. I'll just say idiot and move on.
Actually, it couldn't have been more on point. Apple sells Hardware that runs great software... not the other way around.
Giving windows users the ability to code for the iPhone removes all incentive for a developer to own a Mac (and understand the UI and the user expectations and the HID and the... well you get the point).
Unfortunately, not realizing that, makes you the ignorant one.
Would VS be less likely to similarly be slow in including new and updated APIs? Or would it use Apple supplied update mechanism so no devs would be dependent on MS to stay current?
Visual Studio has an extensive Plugin sub-system. You can get Mono plug-ins, Qt plugins, and much more of that ilk. The VS IDE engine (less compilers) can be licensed and used by third parties. Apple could have an entirely Apple maintained product, that supports Visual Studio. Microsoft would not really need to get involved.
Would VS be less likely to similarly be slow in including new and updated APIs? Or would it use Apple supplied update mechanism so no devs would be dependent on MS to stay current?
If iPhone OS (and/or Mac OS*) development tools were incorporated into VS, I think that would depend entirely on the nature of the integration. But, I just don't see the upside for Apple in doing this. (Seriously, who are all these developers who are clamoring to develop for the iPhone, only being held back because they can't use VS to do it?) Xcode for Windows would make more sense than VS integration, unless the "integration" would be effectively that.
* Although, I don't really see the point of avoiding buying a Mac so you could do Mac OS development on Windows, you still need to test your software on a Mac.
This doesn't make any sense. Microsoft tools use a completely different runtime. Apple just made the no 3rd party runtimes rule. Apple has been putting a lot of work in to their development tools the last few years. Microsoft's tools wouldn't bring anything new. The only thing that makes any sense would be .net coming to the Mac as an alternative to Java (with some of the same user experience problems as Java), but I don't think that Apple would encourage this. Maybe it uses scripting bridge? I could see that I suppose. It's not going to run on the iPad/iPhone in that case though.
There is one notable thing here though. The reference implementation (without the user interface stuff) of .net from Microsoft Research does compile on the Mac. They targeted the Mac to prove that it was cross platform capable like Java. It wasn't heavily optimized for the Mac though.
It makes perfect sense. This completely shuts down the FTC investigation. It's just another way of .|.. to Adobe.
Shifting alliances are the way of the world. I don't like "Bullet-head" Ballmer any more than the next guy, but Microsoft and Apple have a long history together. There is a tacit acknowledgement that when they can help themselves by helping each other, they will. In retrospect, Gates was never the devil that many of us liked to cast him as. He and Jobs were the original Pirates of Silicon Valley after all. The two young dudes who revolutionized personal computer technology worldwide. There is an underlying camaraderie on the human level--born out of a common experience. Like old soldiers, even on opposite sides. Despite the competition, I think the two had genuine respect for one another. On the other hand, Ballmer is just a tool.
If we're looking for a new enemy, look no further than Google. I thought Schmidt's cloning of the iPhone after sitting on Apple's board was corporate treachery of the highest order. I still scratch my head that Apple hasn't made stronger legal moves on that front. The lost iPhone episode pales by comparison. Wish they had kicked in HIS door and seized his personal communications!
Adobe makes a lot of noise, but they know what side their bread is buttered on. They are not even close to the threat Google is.
A very nice summary of the realities at work here, though I might differ with you somewhat on the characterization of Bill Gates. He's polished his reputation since retiring to philanthropy but many of us remember when he was the chief shark of the industry, working very hard to make sure that no technology that did not benefit Microsoft reached the public. His company had the power to make that happen, and they used it. Gates did a lot of damage in his day.
Still, as you say, alliances shift all the time. Apple and Microsoft have a common concern in Google, and so I would not be at all surprised to see them link arms where convenience and a mutual challenger dictate. Ballmer on stage with Jobs, though? That I doubt somehow. More probably someone else from Microsoft who won't be such a distraction, either from the message or from Uncle Steve.
Comments
This would be a horrible move. Silverlight is a terrible, proprietary, patent encumbered, Microsoft technology designed to move Microsoft's illegally obtained desktop monopoly onto the web and non-Microsoft platforms. It is designed to lock developers and consumers into yet another layer of super expensive, proprietary Microsoft technology. No thanks, i will pass.
Actually you can program silverlight with a number of different languages. It's not locked into some proprietary Microsoft language. It's just an alternative to flash that suits some people better, that's all.
What do you think Apple's flash alternative will be? Once you start using it, you'll be locked in. It's the way these kinds of products work.
Either way the odds of Apple suddenly supporting silverlight and not flash in the iphone OS are absolutely slim to none
Translation -- don't believe everything Steve tells you.
.
Advice - don't believe anything Steve tells you. Unless you can get independent verification.
... What do you think Apple's flash alternative will be? Once you start using it, you'll be locked in. It's the way these kinds of products work. ...
Apple has made it pretty clear that their "flash alternative" is HTML5. I don't think developers should be too upset about HTML5 "lock-in".
Advice - don't believe anything Stevie tells you. Unless you can get independent verification.
There, I fixed your typo for you.
Does Xcode work on PC?
Both "yes" and "no". Project Builder did, 100% run on Windows. Project Builder is the IDE prior to the rebranding to XCode (well, yeah, it was a little more complex than that, but you get the idea..) Interface Builder ran on Windows too. I have seen/used them both to build Objective-C projects under Windows.
The issue will be that this was back in the halcyon days of NT3.5, so I've no idea what state that code base is now in. But, the answer is, for sure, not an absolute "no".
Debugging could be interesting, as it would pretty much require a fully operational set of Apple frameworks running on Windows. Never mind the incompatibilities. Maybe it will have a minimal Mac OS X install within a Virtual Machine.
Gee, the Mono guys have it working - it can't be THAT hard.
iPhone, that will be in a virtual machine. Mac - well who knows, but a remote debugger is not impossible.
Now AAPL is valued higher than MS you have to write
"Maybe App£e is buying some MS stock to help them..."
App£?
3 - Windows is getting an infrastructure that will allow Mac applications to run natively (yellowbox?)
+1 for Yellowbox! OpenStep for Win32 is sadly missed :-(
Apple has made it pretty clear that their "flash alternative" is HTML5. I don't think developers should be too upset about HTML5 "lock-in".
no there was an article around here talking about how Apple was developing like a full blown flash alternative, not html5. Maybe I read it wrong.
Either way, once you start using html5, aren't you "locked in" to html5?
While Ballmer speaks, one developer shouts,
"YOU LIE!"
The 1942 State of the Union message:
Roosevelt, "Ladies and Gentlemen, Madame speaker, to tell us today about National Socialism, I present our comrade, Der Feuer, Adolf Hitler!"
Makes one wonder, dId God ever ask Satan to speak at one heavenly event?
no there was an article around here talking about how Apple was developing like a full blown flash alternative, not html5. Maybe I read it wrong.
Either way, once you start using html5, aren't you "locked in" to html5?
This?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._gianduia.html
According to the article, it's entirely HTML5 based. It's a terrible thing, being "locked-in" to open stadards.
Apple should take some advice from Monty Python and ... Run Away!
KRR
(Sorry, lost track of what I snipped above.)
This latter point was exactly the problem with CodeWarrior. It offered an alternate framework that interfered with adoption of native Cocoa APIs. It was a layer between developers and the OS that defined the platform rather than Apple being free to define it. (Sound familiar?) Once Apple made the move to OS X, CodeWarrior had to die so Mac OS X could prosper. Developers had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.
Would VS be less likely to similarly be slow in including new and updated APIs? Or would it use Apple supplied update mechanism so no devs would be dependent on MS to stay current?
(Sorry, lost track of what I snipped above.)
This latter point was exactly the problem with CodeWarrior. It offered an alternate framework that interfered with adoption of native Cocoa APIs. It was a layer between developers and the OS that defined the platform rather than Apple being free to define it. (Sound familiar?) Once Apple made the move to OS X, CodeWarrior had to die so Mac OS X could prosper. Developers had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.
Um, I remember it slightly differently. Codewarrior only built PEF executables, I don't think they ever migrated to Mach-o. Metrowerks sold their Intel compiler to a third party. Apple announced their move to Intel. Metrowerks rolled over, got bought up by Freescale (? IIRC) and vanished into a puff of smoke. All their own doing. Their product was tied to PowerPC, and the platform was EOL. They had no Intel compiler*, so would need to rebadge GCC. Their Mac toolset was geared around PEF, and PEF died with the PowerPC.
* their Intel compiler was a pile of crud and only really did PE. I think they used GCC for any ELF based IA32 platforms, certainly did for most things after they started to spread their product range too thinly over emerging platforms like the Mobile Linux IDE they were doing for QTopia etc.
That's just a ignorant statement. So ignorant, I dont even know how to reply. I'll just say idiot and move on.
Actually, it couldn't have been more on point. Apple sells Hardware that runs great software... not the other way around.
Giving windows users the ability to code for the iPhone removes all incentive for a developer to own a Mac (and understand the UI and the user expectations and the HID and the... well you get the point).
Unfortunately, not realizing that, makes you the ignorant one.
Would VS be less likely to similarly be slow in including new and updated APIs? Or would it use Apple supplied update mechanism so no devs would be dependent on MS to stay current?
Visual Studio has an extensive Plugin sub-system. You can get Mono plug-ins, Qt plugins, and much more of that ilk. The VS IDE engine (less compilers) can be licensed and used by third parties. Apple could have an entirely Apple maintained product, that supports Visual Studio. Microsoft would not really need to get involved.
Would VS be less likely to similarly be slow in including new and updated APIs? Or would it use Apple supplied update mechanism so no devs would be dependent on MS to stay current?
If iPhone OS (and/or Mac OS*) development tools were incorporated into VS, I think that would depend entirely on the nature of the integration. But, I just don't see the upside for Apple in doing this. (Seriously, who are all these developers who are clamoring to develop for the iPhone, only being held back because they can't use VS to do it?) Xcode for Windows would make more sense than VS integration, unless the "integration" would be effectively that.
* Although, I don't really see the point of avoiding buying a Mac so you could do Mac OS development on Windows, you still need to test your software on a Mac.
This doesn't make any sense. Microsoft tools use a completely different runtime. Apple just made the no 3rd party runtimes rule. Apple has been putting a lot of work in to their development tools the last few years. Microsoft's tools wouldn't bring anything new. The only thing that makes any sense would be .net coming to the Mac as an alternative to Java (with some of the same user experience problems as Java), but I don't think that Apple would encourage this. Maybe it uses scripting bridge? I could see that I suppose. It's not going to run on the iPad/iPhone in that case though.
There is one notable thing here though. The reference implementation (without the user interface stuff) of .net from Microsoft Research does compile on the Mac. They targeted the Mac to prove that it was cross platform capable like Java. It wasn't heavily optimized for the Mac though.
It makes perfect sense. This completely shuts down the FTC investigation. It's just another way of .|.. to Adobe.
Shifting alliances are the way of the world. I don't like "Bullet-head" Ballmer any more than the next guy, but Microsoft and Apple have a long history together. There is a tacit acknowledgement that when they can help themselves by helping each other, they will. In retrospect, Gates was never the devil that many of us liked to cast him as. He and Jobs were the original Pirates of Silicon Valley after all. The two young dudes who revolutionized personal computer technology worldwide. There is an underlying camaraderie on the human level--born out of a common experience. Like old soldiers, even on opposite sides. Despite the competition, I think the two had genuine respect for one another. On the other hand, Ballmer is just a tool.
If we're looking for a new enemy, look no further than Google. I thought Schmidt's cloning of the iPhone after sitting on Apple's board was corporate treachery of the highest order. I still scratch my head that Apple hasn't made stronger legal moves on that front. The lost iPhone episode pales by comparison. Wish they had kicked in HIS door and seized his personal communications!
Adobe makes a lot of noise, but they know what side their bread is buttered on. They are not even close to the threat Google is.
A very nice summary of the realities at work here, though I might differ with you somewhat on the characterization of Bill Gates. He's polished his reputation since retiring to philanthropy but many of us remember when he was the chief shark of the industry, working very hard to make sure that no technology that did not benefit Microsoft reached the public. His company had the power to make that happen, and they used it. Gates did a lot of damage in his day.
Still, as you say, alliances shift all the time. Apple and Microsoft have a common concern in Google, and so I would not be at all surprised to see them link arms where convenience and a mutual challenger dictate. Ballmer on stage with Jobs, though? That I doubt somehow. More probably someone else from Microsoft who won't be such a distraction, either from the message or from Uncle Steve.