auxio

elijahg said:

nunzy said:

It looks like they learned a valuable lesson. If you mess with Apple, you get hammered.

The one that's going to get hammered is Apple, if they continue with this anticompetitive behaviour.

StrangeDays said:

cropr said:

• Nothing was announced about the evolution of Swift.  Given that WWDC is targeted at developers, this is worrying.
  

Swift evolution was covered on Tuesday morning in a session mysteriously called "What's New in Swift". You can watch it here:

https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2018/401/

CobraGuy said:

auxio said:

loopless said:

I am not sure people realize that Microsoft does not support OpenGL either. Out of the box windows only supports only an ancient version of OpenGL -v1.2. Every graphics card manufacturer for windows has to ship their own up to date OpenGL drivers. The problem on macOS is that Apple controls the hardware and has to supply the drivers. 

Nobody does OpenGL development for Windows.  Even with up-to-date video card drivers, it's buggy and slow compared to DirectX.  But yet game developers don't complain about having to write games for Microsoft's proprietary API.

And oh look... a quick Google search shows that there's a technology called MoltenVK to allow developers to use Vulkan (the cross-platform Metal alternative) on top of Metal.  So the whining game developers who are happy to use proprietary APIs from Microsoft, but not Apple, are free to keep using cross-platform technologies.

Well, DirectX has been out for years.

i recall back in the day that ID Software (Doom and Quake) and Epic (Unreal) were once staunch supporters of OpenGL.

Apple was once too.

loopless said:

I am not sure people realize that Microsoft does not support OpenGL either. Out of the box windows only supports only an ancient version of OpenGL -v1.2. Every graphics card manufacturer for windows has to ship their own up to date OpenGL drivers. The problem on macOS is that Apple controls the hardware and has to supply the drivers. 

bigmushroom said:

DanielEran said:

gatorguy said:

Of course you wouldn't want to code around the agreement. You'd code around the patented part of the technology to try and avoid infringing if you don't want to pay the inventor, and I'm sure that's what you've done before if you've been at it very long. No matter how you get there you're building on someone else's hard work while refusing the originator profit for it.

How many times have you seen some good, inventive and hopefully profitable 3rd party feature "copied" in essence by Apple or whoever and integrated into their own software while the person/company with the original idea withers away on the vine? All quite legal as long as the surgery is good.

Your whataboutism and both-sidesing are phony distractions from the fact that:

Google stole significant Java code available under the GPL, then distributed it in violation of that license to make money without paying a licensing fee for Java, without following Suns' licensing rules for Java (stealing control of Sun's platform), and also without respect for the GPL. 

Apple didn't steal code, it didn't steal somebody else's platform, and it didn't violate the GPL just because it might have been convenient for a large company wanting to run things without doing the work to earn or acquire ownership. 

Google also stole content from Yelp, stole content from authors, stole content from news sites, etc and then repressed lawsuits until it achieved monopolistic control over advertising on the web, and everyone just had to agree that it was okay Google scraped their work because they were being given traffic by Google. 

Google also helped its licensees steal clearly patented ideas from iOS, and only escaped there because it was giving away the support of its theft. 

When Apple acquired former Palm talent to build its notification system (which Google had simply ripped off for Android), Android fans accused Apple of taking Google's (unprotected) ideas. But that wasn't true, Google had no ownership, and Apple had been working on it for just as long.

Apple didn't steal code from Android. It didn't steal Unix code, and it worked to make sure its implementation of BSD was legitimate. Apple has had IP disagreements with Nokia, Qualcomm and many others, but those didn't result from Apple deciding to steal their work and just not pay for it because it was a larger company. Further, Apple has shown a willingness to pay the licensing costs of agreements, even when they are not exactly fair. 

Google's culture is all about stealing. It stole its first business model, stole its primary platform, attempted to steal iPhone and iPad, and it steals content with abandon. That's because it's made up largely of Microsoft people, which shared the same steal first, pay later ethos. 

Your consistent, slavish support for Google reflects the same sort of amorality that often takes the shape of hypocrisy as you try to paint Google as perfectly righteous and (at the same time) the rest of the world as "just as criminal." 

Google didn't use the Java API to save time developing Android (they could have easily renamed function names and changed them slightly) but in order to make it easy for third party to develop for the platform. It's not clear why an API developer should own the human capital that stored in form of muscle memory in the heads of thousands of developers if they profited handsomely already from these developers writing code for them.

...

Bending your mind like a pretzel to write stuff that fits your anti Google crusade isn't healthy.