Even having never met him, I know for certain that he can't. Steve has ideas. His ideas are good enough that he can pay people to do work for him. It's the same as any executive with an idea but without the skills to form something from it himself; he just presents it to a design team and they do their stuff.
Actually, he does quite a bit more, and sometimes less, than just present his ideas to a design team.
This is a great read about the development of the original Macintosh, and my guess is that his style of pushing people to make great products has not changed that much over the years.
EDIT: And for anyone interested in what the reality distortion field really is:
What a waste of his time. Shouldn't he be working on getting printing to work instead?
Steve understands that the customer is the Boss. He pays for your home, your cars, your vacation, holidays and kids education. He is a very smart CEO. That's why Apple has the second highest market cap.
Even having never met him, I know for certain that he can't. Steve has ideas. His ideas are good enough that he can pay people to do work for him. It's the same as any executive with an idea but without the skills to form something from it himself; he just presents it to a design team and they do their stuff.
Even if he could code, it would be a colossal waste of time. In the places I have worked, even senior staff engineers do not code. They architect, and guide/mentor the younger developers.
What a waste of his time. Shouldn't he be working on getting printing to work instead?
What a silly comment. SJ knows that when he responds to one guy it will be all over the internet within hours. People will discuss at length and for the most part it will further reinforce the idea of Apple as a company that cares, is cool, and in spite of it being a huge corporation behaves more like a small startup. Essentially SJ is a master viral marketeer, among many other things.
As for the developer bitching about things, he needs to shut his mouth. He knew he used a private API and admitted to it and then wonders why he was rejected. Clown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Why use a private API when there is a perfectly good public function textFieldDoneEditing that everyone else uses.
I can't believe NOBODY read the original article this was linked to. If you had, you would have seen that THE REASON HE USED A PRIVATE API CALL IS BECAUSE OF A *BUG* IN THE SDK!!!
*IF* people had read the original articles they would have seen that the developer is not someone who thinks the rules don't apply to him and he can use private APIs with reckless abandon. There was apparently some bug in the "perfectly good public function that everyone else uses," so he used the private API call as a workaround.
When the app was rejected he filed an appeal on the basis that he used the call to work around a bug in the SDK. It's not an unreasonable thing to expect that Apple might have made an exception in his case. He e-mailed Jobs at the same time he filed the appeal. Jobs called him and they talked and it was explained that an exception would set a bad precedent so he then changed his app to avoid running into the bug (apparently he had to make changes to his user interface to do so).
Presumably they talked about the bug and it will get fixed, if it hasn't already been fixed for iOS 4.2, so everybody wins in this case.
He certainly wasn't "bitching" about it.
PLEASE read and THINK before posting. You know what happens when you assume things.
Why are we discussing this like it really happened?
In the Mac 512, SE days( cira 1985..1987) Steve Jobs used to call a friend of mine at Dan Patch to make sure they had computers to sell. I am going with Steve is still Steve doing what Steve has done repeatedly in the past.
I going with Steve doing something different than what Michael Dell does for Dell Computers, manage from behind a desk. I am going with Steve must be doing some serious personal research to hit on iPod, iPad, OS X.... and on and on. Either that or he has a fantastic weegee board.
I can't believe NOBODY read the original article this was linked to. If you had, you would have seen that THE REASON HE USED A PRIVATE API CALL IS BECAUSE OF A *BUG* IN THE SDK!!!
*IF* people had read the original articles they would have seen that the developer is not someone who thinks the rules don't apply to him and he can use private APIs with reckless abandon. There was apparently some bug in the "perfectly good public function that everyone else uses," so he used the private API call as a workaround.
When the app was rejected he filed an appeal on the basis that he used the call to work around a bug in the SDK. It's not an unreasonable thing to expect that Apple might have made an exception in his case. He e-mailed Jobs at the same time he filed the appeal. Jobs called him and they talked and it was explained that an exception would set a bad precedent so he then changed his app to avoid running into the bug (apparently he had to make changes to his user interface to do so).
Presumably they talked about the bug and it will get fixed, if it hasn't already been fixed for iOS 4.2, so everybody wins in this case.
He certainly wasn't "bitching" about it.
PLEASE read and THINK before posting. You know what happens when you assume things.
I read the article. Yes I know it was the only workaround he had for his paricular issue, but he also knew that using private APIs wouldn't get his app cleared. Obviously he went back and corrected the issue, but whether he corrected it or Apple corrected their end in the SDK, that's not mentioned clearly.
Whether he had a problem with the SDK or not, he's still not smart knowing he is doing something that will get his app rejected.
Hadn't looked at the folklore.org site in quite a few years, but was rereading some of the articles today. Here's another one that I think gives some good insight into how Steve Jobs drives product development:
I read the article. Yes I know it was the only workaround he had for his paricular issue, but he also knew that using private APIs wouldn't get his app cleared. Obviously he went back and corrected the issue, but whether he corrected it or Apple corrected their end in the SDK, that's not mentioned clearly.
Since the SDK was not updated, he must have changed his code.
"I told him that I would replace the modal form sheet with alternative UI. Removing the form sheet (and therefore its bug) would eliminate the need for the private API"
The Economy app on iPad is awesome. For me, having all the up-to-date economic data in one place, in a coherent and user-friendly container is extremely valuable.
No, that's what he has his peeps do for him. I actually am not sure if he is even able to code anything.
As for the developer bitching about things, he needs to shut his mouth. He knew he used a private API and admitted to it and then wonders why he was rejected. Clown.
Worst is the gulibility with respect to the rumor sites and their willingness to publish such crap. It is perfectly obvious that the guy simply didn't try hard enough or doesn't understand programming of iOS devices to get the code right in the first place. Obviously it didn't take much effort to get it right, so it sounds like lazzyness.
This whole thing is BS anyways as it is never a good idea to use private APIs on any platform. The only difference is that Apple enforces the practice. Maybe they definition of "private" has never been explained to these people.
I going with Steve doing something different than what Michael Dell does for Dell Computers, manage from behind a desk. I am going with Steve must be doing some serious personal research to hit on iPod, iPad, OS X.... and on and on. Either that or he has a fantastic weegee board.
Jim
According to a news article a few years ago profiling various CEO's, Michael Dell has been known to help take customer orders over the phone.
You can support this guy all you want but bugs are not a reasonable excuse. Every bit of non trivial software a developer will ever come into contact with will have bugs. It is going to happen but it is not a justification for break the rules with respect to SDK usage.
The rule with respect to private APIs is one of the most rational in the SDK agreement. Think about it what would the developers response be if his app broke because Apple fixed the bug by adapting the private API he was using. How about his custommers response to a broken app, especially one that breaks after a software (OS) update.
Frankly this complaint is about as valid as the guy that gets the speeding ticket and then tries to explain to the officer he didn't want to be late for the ball game. The driver loose the arguement on at least two counts, one is he could have done things the right way and left at a reasonable time. The other is that the ball game certainly isn't an emergency. In this case the private API usage wasn't even a drive to the ball game, it is nothing but BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PersonMan
I can't believe NOBODY read the original article this was linked to. If you had, you would have seen that THE REASON HE USED A PRIVATE API CALL IS BECAUSE OF A *BUG* IN THE SDK!!!
*IF* people had read the original articles they would have seen that the developer is not someone who thinks the rules don't apply to him and he can use private APIs with reckless abandon. There was apparently some bug in the "perfectly good public function that everyone else uses," so he used the private API call as a workaround.
When the app was rejected he filed an appeal on the basis that he used the call to work around a bug in the SDK. It's not an unreasonable thing to expect that Apple might have made an exception in his case. He e-mailed Jobs at the same time he filed the appeal. Jobs called him and they talked and it was explained that an exception would set a bad precedent so he then changed his app to avoid running into the bug (apparently he had to make changes to his user interface to do so).
Presumably they talked about the bug and it will get fixed, if it hasn't already been fixed for iOS 4.2, so everybody wins in this case.
He certainly wasn't "bitching" about it.
PLEASE read and THINK before posting. You know what happens when you assume things.
Since the SDK was not updated, he must have changed his code.
"I told him that I would replace the modal form sheet with alternative UI. Removing the form sheet (and therefore its bug) would eliminate the need for the private API"
Yes, he changed his code to work around his bug. He is now using an alternate user interface from what he intended. He would not have had to do that if there were no bug in the SDK to start with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Worst is the gulibility with respect to the rumor sites and their willingness to publish such crap. It is perfectly obvious that the guy simply didn't try hard enough or doesn't understand programming of iOS devices to get the code right in the first place. Obviously it didn't take much effort to get it right, so it sounds like lazzyness.
This whole thing is BS anyways as it is never a good idea to use private APIs on any platform. The only difference is that Apple enforces the practice. Maybe they definition of "private" has never been explained to these people.
It's not laziness on his part. He had to replace part of his original design to work around the bug, which he would not have had to do if there hadn't been a bug in the first place. Yes, he knew that using the private API would get his app rejected, but it is still not an unreasonable thing to see if appealing the rejection for a specific use would get them to make an exception. (Sometimes companies *DO* make exceptions. The only way to know if they will or not is to try and ask).
Yes, there is no current problem with the app because he worked around the bug. Now that iOS 4.2 is coming out he will likely see if the SDK bug has been fixed, and he may even restore his original user interface intent.
His blog posting about Steve Jobs calling him was not to complain about the outcome. He was praising Apple because they took the time to call him and talk about what is still a largely opaque approval process.
I think to be fair he pushed really hard at the start, but has met much resistance with companies worried that they will lose money (not been able to gather customer information is a huge, huge thing)
To that I say screw them all, if the publishing industry can't change then it needs to die!!!! There is no rational reason for this business model to exist. I don't subscribe to magazines for the privledge of being marketed to by companies I will never do business with. Rather it is about magazine content, if it isn't there then I have no interest in the magazine.
Quote:
or just not interested enough to commit resources. So now it'll happen, but at a much slower pace.
Personally I think it's quite awesome that he would do this, even if these emails and this calls are pure marketing (which I personally don't think they are). Maybe he isn't Jesus but he's the best CEO out there.
I think Apple knows full well how ugly marketing could get in the electronic age. As a result they have put their foot down sollidly on the side of the consummer. This is a good thing and with the proper focus by Apple could turn the publishing industry around and possible make them indepedent of the marketing organizations that have so much control these days. Besides people that grasp what Apple is all about are making really good money via app store and the book store.
Comments
Even having never met him, I know for certain that he can't. Steve has ideas. His ideas are good enough that he can pay people to do work for him. It's the same as any executive with an idea but without the skills to form something from it himself; he just presents it to a design team and they do their stuff.
Actually, he does quite a bit more, and sometimes less, than just present his ideas to a design team.
http://folklore.org/index.py
This is a great read about the development of the original Macintosh, and my guess is that his style of pushing people to make great products has not changed that much over the years.
EDIT: And for anyone interested in what the reality distortion field really is:
http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?pro...&detail=medium
What a waste of his time. Shouldn't he be working on getting printing to work instead?
Steve understands that the customer is the Boss. He pays for your home, your cars, your vacation, holidays and kids education. He is a very smart CEO. That's why Apple has the second highest market cap.
Even having never met him, I know for certain that he can't. Steve has ideas. His ideas are good enough that he can pay people to do work for him. It's the same as any executive with an idea but without the skills to form something from it himself; he just presents it to a design team and they do their stuff.
Even if he could code, it would be a colossal waste of time. In the places I have worked, even senior staff engineers do not code. They architect, and guide/mentor the younger developers.
He sent a correspondence to Steve Jobs and Steve thought it was worthy of a response...so he probably isn't a clown.
Why are we discussing this like it really happened?
What a waste of his time. Shouldn't he be working on getting printing to work instead?
What a silly comment. SJ knows that when he responds to one guy it will be all over the internet within hours. People will discuss at length and for the most part it will further reinforce the idea of Apple as a company that cares, is cool, and in spite of it being a huge corporation behaves more like a small startup. Essentially SJ is a master viral marketeer, among many other things.
As for the developer bitching about things, he needs to shut his mouth. He knew he used a private API and admitted to it and then wonders why he was rejected. Clown.
Why use a private API when there is a perfectly good public function textFieldDoneEditing that everyone else uses.
I can't believe NOBODY read the original article this was linked to. If you had, you would have seen that THE REASON HE USED A PRIVATE API CALL IS BECAUSE OF A *BUG* IN THE SDK!!!
*IF* people had read the original articles they would have seen that the developer is not someone who thinks the rules don't apply to him and he can use private APIs with reckless abandon. There was apparently some bug in the "perfectly good public function that everyone else uses," so he used the private API call as a workaround.
When the app was rejected he filed an appeal on the basis that he used the call to work around a bug in the SDK. It's not an unreasonable thing to expect that Apple might have made an exception in his case. He e-mailed Jobs at the same time he filed the appeal. Jobs called him and they talked and it was explained that an exception would set a bad precedent so he then changed his app to avoid running into the bug (apparently he had to make changes to his user interface to do so).
Presumably they talked about the bug and it will get fixed, if it hasn't already been fixed for iOS 4.2, so everybody wins in this case.
He certainly wasn't "bitching" about it.
PLEASE read and THINK before posting. You know what happens when you assume things.
Why are we discussing this like it really happened?
In the Mac 512, SE days( cira 1985..1987) Steve Jobs used to call a friend of mine at Dan Patch to make sure they had computers to sell. I am going with Steve is still Steve doing what Steve has done repeatedly in the past.
I going with Steve doing something different than what Michael Dell does for Dell Computers, manage from behind a desk. I am going with Steve must be doing some serious personal research to hit on iPod, iPad, OS X.... and on and on. Either that or he has a fantastic weegee board.
Jim
I can't believe NOBODY read the original article this was linked to. If you had, you would have seen that THE REASON HE USED A PRIVATE API CALL IS BECAUSE OF A *BUG* IN THE SDK!!!
*IF* people had read the original articles they would have seen that the developer is not someone who thinks the rules don't apply to him and he can use private APIs with reckless abandon. There was apparently some bug in the "perfectly good public function that everyone else uses," so he used the private API call as a workaround.
When the app was rejected he filed an appeal on the basis that he used the call to work around a bug in the SDK. It's not an unreasonable thing to expect that Apple might have made an exception in his case. He e-mailed Jobs at the same time he filed the appeal. Jobs called him and they talked and it was explained that an exception would set a bad precedent so he then changed his app to avoid running into the bug (apparently he had to make changes to his user interface to do so).
Presumably they talked about the bug and it will get fixed, if it hasn't already been fixed for iOS 4.2, so everybody wins in this case.
He certainly wasn't "bitching" about it.
PLEASE read and THINK before posting. You know what happens when you assume things.
I read the article. Yes I know it was the only workaround he had for his paricular issue, but he also knew that using private APIs wouldn't get his app cleared. Obviously he went back and corrected the issue, but whether he corrected it or Apple corrected their end in the SDK, that's not mentioned clearly.
Whether he had a problem with the SDK or not, he's still not smart knowing he is doing something that will get his app rejected.
http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?pro...rt%20by%20Date
Your move, Ballmer.
I read the article. Yes I know it was the only workaround he had for his paricular issue, but he also knew that using private APIs wouldn't get his app cleared. Obviously he went back and corrected the issue, but whether he corrected it or Apple corrected their end in the SDK, that's not mentioned clearly.
Since the SDK was not updated, he must have changed his code.
"I told him that I would replace the modal form sheet with alternative UI. Removing the form sheet (and therefore its bug) would eliminate the need for the private API"
What a waste of his time. Shouldn't he be working on getting printing to work instead?
Whatever Steve is doing, he is doing it the right way. All shareholders agree.
No, that's what he has his peeps do for him. I actually am not sure if he is even able to code anything.
As for the developer bitching about things, he needs to shut his mouth. He knew he used a private API and admitted to it and then wonders why he was rejected. Clown.
Worst is the gulibility with respect to the rumor sites and their willingness to publish such crap. It is perfectly obvious that the guy simply didn't try hard enough or doesn't understand programming of iOS devices to get the code right in the first place. Obviously it didn't take much effort to get it right, so it sounds like lazzyness.
This whole thing is BS anyways as it is never a good idea to use private APIs on any platform. The only difference is that Apple enforces the practice. Maybe they definition of "private" has never been explained to these people.
I going with Steve doing something different than what Michael Dell does for Dell Computers, manage from behind a desk. I am going with Steve must be doing some serious personal research to hit on iPod, iPad, OS X.... and on and on. Either that or he has a fantastic weegee board.
Jim
According to a news article a few years ago profiling various CEO's, Michael Dell has been known to help take customer orders over the phone.
The rule with respect to private APIs is one of the most rational in the SDK agreement. Think about it what would the developers response be if his app broke because Apple fixed the bug by adapting the private API he was using. How about his custommers response to a broken app, especially one that breaks after a software (OS) update.
Frankly this complaint is about as valid as the guy that gets the speeding ticket and then tries to explain to the officer he didn't want to be late for the ball game. The driver loose the arguement on at least two counts, one is he could have done things the right way and left at a reasonable time. The other is that the ball game certainly isn't an emergency. In this case the private API usage wasn't even a drive to the ball game, it is nothing but BS.
I can't believe NOBODY read the original article this was linked to. If you had, you would have seen that THE REASON HE USED A PRIVATE API CALL IS BECAUSE OF A *BUG* IN THE SDK!!!
*IF* people had read the original articles they would have seen that the developer is not someone who thinks the rules don't apply to him and he can use private APIs with reckless abandon. There was apparently some bug in the "perfectly good public function that everyone else uses," so he used the private API call as a workaround.
When the app was rejected he filed an appeal on the basis that he used the call to work around a bug in the SDK. It's not an unreasonable thing to expect that Apple might have made an exception in his case. He e-mailed Jobs at the same time he filed the appeal. Jobs called him and they talked and it was explained that an exception would set a bad precedent so he then changed his app to avoid running into the bug (apparently he had to make changes to his user interface to do so).
Presumably they talked about the bug and it will get fixed, if it hasn't already been fixed for iOS 4.2, so everybody wins in this case.
He certainly wasn't "bitching" about it.
PLEASE read and THINK before posting. You know what happens when you assume things.
go jObs!
JObs
wtf AA won't let me use a 4-character response?
Since the SDK was not updated, he must have changed his code.
"I told him that I would replace the modal form sheet with alternative UI. Removing the form sheet (and therefore its bug) would eliminate the need for the private API"
Yes, he changed his code to work around his bug. He is now using an alternate user interface from what he intended. He would not have had to do that if there were no bug in the SDK to start with.
Worst is the gulibility with respect to the rumor sites and their willingness to publish such crap. It is perfectly obvious that the guy simply didn't try hard enough or doesn't understand programming of iOS devices to get the code right in the first place. Obviously it didn't take much effort to get it right, so it sounds like lazzyness.
This whole thing is BS anyways as it is never a good idea to use private APIs on any platform. The only difference is that Apple enforces the practice. Maybe they definition of "private" has never been explained to these people.
It's not laziness on his part. He had to replace part of his original design to work around the bug, which he would not have had to do if there hadn't been a bug in the first place. Yes, he knew that using the private API would get his app rejected, but it is still not an unreasonable thing to see if appealing the rejection for a specific use would get them to make an exception. (Sometimes companies *DO* make exceptions. The only way to know if they will or not is to try and ask).
Yes, there is no current problem with the app because he worked around the bug. Now that iOS 4.2 is coming out he will likely see if the SDK bug has been fixed, and he may even restore his original user interface intent.
His blog posting about Steve Jobs calling him was not to complain about the outcome. He was praising Apple because they took the time to call him and talk about what is still a largely opaque approval process.
I think to be fair he pushed really hard at the start, but has met much resistance with companies worried that they will lose money (not been able to gather customer information is a huge, huge thing)
To that I say screw them all, if the publishing industry can't change then it needs to die!!!! There is no rational reason for this business model to exist. I don't subscribe to magazines for the privledge of being marketed to by companies I will never do business with. Rather it is about magazine content, if it isn't there then I have no interest in the magazine.
or just not interested enough to commit resources. So now it'll happen, but at a much slower pace.
Personally I think it's quite awesome that he would do this, even if these emails and this calls are pure marketing (which I personally don't think they are). Maybe he isn't Jesus but he's the best CEO out there.
I think Apple knows full well how ugly marketing could get in the electronic age. As a result they have put their foot down sollidly on the side of the consummer. This is a good thing and with the proper focus by Apple could turn the publishing industry around and possible make them indepedent of the marketing organizations that have so much control these days. Besides people that grasp what Apple is all about are making really good money via app store and the book store.
Dave