Apple was right, Adobe get over it?

[BLynx]

(deleted)

[The Chase]

IBM had to learn it, Microsoft are still learning it, SGI died because of it, but for some reason Jobs is on his third go at it; closed systems tend to stagnate and open systems thrive better. In his rush to crush Android he might just have handed it the leverage it needs to eat his lunch...

Bingo. It's exactly what happened to them 20ish years ago with computers. Their phone OS is only available on their own phone. Android is on 25+ phones and about as many other devices, a number that's exponentially rising.

I'm watching it all unfold and they are making the exact decisions they made when Microsoft made an open OS that ran on the rest of the market's computers. And everyone knows how it ended, with them falling to 5% of the market share.

Iphones have always been terribly over-rated anyway.

[UltraJv]

So how does this figure in all the mess :

http://www.neowin.net/news/flash-comes- ... ia-ripcode

[xh3rv]

Well, let me ask you this. When have the lemmings (I mean Apple customers) not lined up for any new product the company releases? Will this new direction regarding app platform conformance cause any customers to turn back? I don't think so. How many devs are going to try and make it work...to keep Apple happy by complying. Some have already publicly indicated they will try, but don't know if they can pull it off. This includes those who have been certifying iPhone apps for performance and conformance. They may also have to find a new business model.

Yet Apple must have known all of this when it formulated and then implemented these new policies. They're betting they will find themselves where they want vis-a-vis their competitors and there will always be enough devs willing to fall in with the party line. I really think Apple sees itself facing an increasingly competitive market that they can only overcome by app exclusivity. Even if most of these are crap.

I'm saying that what people think Apple's policy is right now, is not what Apple's policy will end up being. The narrative people have is that Apple is, to some degree, screwing over developers, or at least factionalizing them. I think the current language, without clarification or adjustment, warrants that narrative. But I suspect that's not really what will happen.

Platform-generic development for these sorts of devices seems like kryptonite for what Apple wants. They don't want to have to depend on Adobe to implement Flash well, they don't want UI-library-wrapping stuff that makes devices with limited user interface hardware more complicated (this stuff hardly ever works extremely well on PCs - even if it is functional it will often be a little complicated, both for users and programmers), they don't want their implementation of things to be undercut by generic approaches which they have no control over. These are all detail-oriented design stuff that Apple excels at, it's why they have lemmings.

Just as a quick point, Apple also says they won't support Java, but people don't seem nearly as upset about that. It's for the exact same reasons they won't support Flash, but maybe it's more obvious why in the case of Java.

I'm speculating at this point, but I don't see how Apple really benefits from excluding developers simply because their apps exist on other platforms. I really think Apple is trying to say "we're basically not going to be happy if you use some tools that we view as problematic from a technical and design perspective, so don't plan on that". But I haven't seen a single indication that the motivation for this is to kill cross-platform stuff - like an app that's properly, carefully ported and developed across different architectures, versus just poorly done platform-generic stuff that conflicts with Apple's design (again, Apple keeping the design stuff so tight is I think really just a fundamental fact of their existence). The language right now doesn't distinguish very well between the two approaches to developing cross-platform, and I would be a little surprised if the situation doesn't evolve to make that more clear.

[e] And to blabber more, these different approaches to cross-platform design might not even be easy to distinguish technically - it's one of those "I'll know it when I see it" kind of things, and a lot of special cases that haven't been specified. I don't think developers right at this moment have enough information to really evaluate what Apple's decision means to them, and that's not good.

[eduardo_b]

I'm speculating at this point, but I don't see how Apple really benefits from excluding developers simply because their apps exist on other platforms. I really think Apple is trying to say "we're basically not going to be happy if you use some tools that we view as problematic from a technical and design perspective, so don't plan on that". But I haven't seen a single indication that the motivation for this is to kill cross-platform stuff...

What I've read says just the opposite. Given how easily Android can suck up Apple market share simply given the number of smartphone companies willing to share this OS, their only hope is to keep "their" apps off of other devices. They're willing to burn bridges to create the perception that only Apple devices will have what consumers want. It's crap, but some people will believe the hype.

I'm ambivalent about Google. Do no evil meets the borg approach to technology. But, I know those with Andriod phones seem very pleased. I'm not a touchscreen guy, so I can't comment on this as a user, but I think the open approach that is typical of Google is going to cost Apple in the long run. Without iTunes, the entire iPod line would have been toast.

But with iPhone/iPad they don't have the same scenario without restricting the apps to their platform. I think it will fail in the long run, but their stragtegy of exclusivity of apps is probably all they've got left. Despite all the iPhone hype, their market share isn't nearly as large as one might assume, and yet it's predicted that 80 percent of their revenues will be from iPhone, iTouch and iPad next year. That makes them quite vulnerable in the long run.

[Sweet Tooth]

No - the US does not have true democracy. Canada imo has more "real" democracy than in the US, but is more socialist. Both allow consumer choice. My point was that consumer choice is very important and shouldnt be taken lightly.

Get real...

"Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a written (i.e., codified), unwritten (i.e., uncodified) or blended constitution. It differs from absolute monarchy in that an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution.

Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the Monarch may have strictly Ceremonial duties or may have Reserve Powers, depending on the constitution, have a directly or indirectly elected prime minister who is the head of government and exercises effective political power. In the past, constitutional monarchs have co-existed with fascist and quasi-fascist constitutions (Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain) and with military dictatorships.

Parliamentary systems are characterized by no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a different set of checks and balances compared to those found in presidential systems. Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being a figurehead, often either a president (elected either popularly or by the parliament) or a hereditary monarch (often in a constitutional monarchy).

U.S.A is a Constitutional Republic
A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power."

Direct Democracy does not work and I just love how the Brits fawn over those damn Royals.

[xh3rv]

What I've read says just the opposite.

I won't say that none of this stuff is credible. But my opinions are: (hopefully this shows where I"m coming from, I'm not saying anyone has to agree)

Of course Android is big news, but my opinion is that it will be a luke-warm success at best and as much as it may benefit from being open, it will also run into just a lot of fragmentation and things never really materializing or being implemented poorly. I also think Google is naive about how much smart phone consumers are really going to put up with hardware / software conflicts - I think tolerance will be about zero for that. Also the ad campaign sucks, which is ironic given how Google makes money ...

I don't trust most of the financial news stuff, either. I've never really felt like any of the major outlets for financial advice and prognostication really understood tech, and besides that they may have other motives / be playing some other game ...

But with iPhone/iPad they don't have the same scenario without restricting the apps to their platform. I think it will fail in the long run, but their stragtegy of exclusivity of apps is probably all they've got left. Despite all the iPhone hype, their market share isn't nearly as large as one might assume, and yet it's predicted that 80 percent of their revenues will be from iPhone, iTouch and iPad next year. That makes them quite vulnerable in the long run.

To be clear it's the hardware that's generating the income, not the apps. So the apps are part of the big picture, but I think (and I think Apple thinks) it's all about the platform as a whole. I think Apple wants to make sure apps don't ruin the platform; bad apps that are poorly ported, or developed with poorly implemented toolkits can do this. For the example of Flash, which seems to be the genesis of all of this, it's quite clear there are some technical issues and trust issues with Adobe. It would be the same for Java's *really* bland implementation of a lot of stuff (which is kind of the point of Java, anyway). All the magic cross-platform toolkit stuff I"ve seen is similar - ending up as a generic, poor subset of more concrete systems.

But this idea of exclusive apps per platform, I'm not convinced at all Apple intends this, almost universally it's regarded as a dumb and somewhat abusive idea. I think it's about having an exclusive standard of quality for apps, such that stuff that isn't rewarding to users doesn't exist.

[eduardo_b]

Of course Android is big news, but my opinion is that it will be a luke-warm success at best and as much as it may benefit from being open, it will also run into just a lot of fragmentation and things never really materializing or being implemented poorly. I also think Google is naive about how much smart phone consumers are really going to put up with hardware / software conflicts - I think tolerance will be about zero for that. Also the ad campaign sucks, which is ironic given how Google makes money ...

I could be wrong, but what Apple lacks is the ability to compete against an open OS that dozens of competitors will use to create a huge range of choices that outcompete iPhones in every conceivable way. All of this Apple not-invented-here crap is going to come back to haunt it. What Apple doesn't have is 90 percent of the market.

Consumers, other than the acolytes of Apple, are not loyal in the way that Apple needs in order to expand their market. The cachet of the iPhone will evaporate as Android phones push into the market. I've seen them and they are iPhone killers. Apple has made a good living off of premium-priced devices -- computers to phones -- that rely on perception as much as reality for consumer attraction. From the Droid phones I've seen, Apple is in trouble. First to market doesn't guarantee long-term market dominance.

[xh3rv]

I could be wrong, but what Apple lacks is the ability to compete against an open OS that dozens of competitors will use to create a huge range of choices that outcompete iPhones in every conceivable way.

I think that would probably be a big location of a difference in opinion - this idea certainly has a lot of people and companies investing in it, and I wouldn't stake my life on it not playing out this way or anything. I just don't see this as being such a huge competitor Apple's model.

As an analogy, people have, or at least had been, saying the same thing about Linux for a long time. Linux and free software in general definitely has a place in the world of computing, it's pretty important to infrastructure, but it's not the mainstream choice for people who are using personal computers outside of a limited set of tech jobs, and certainly not at home. This sort of environment - where people don't want hassles, they want things to simply work - I think pretty closely characterizes the smart phone market. If it takes people a ton of free time just figure out how to string things together amongst a massive number of choices, and if what works on one phone doesn't work quite so well on another, even if the Android can be configured to outperform the iPhone, are a lot of customers really going to invest that much time and effort into it?

[eduardo_b]

As an analogy, people have, or at least had been, saying the same thing about Linux for a long time.

Linux, imo, was always a non-starter because it simply had no appeal to the non-geek. Despite all the press and articles, Linux has little to no appeal for the vast majority of users, who don't maintain servers and have no interest in OS minutia. I've always thought Linus fans were delusional, but I thought the same of OS2 proponents. They don't get the market at all.

This is not the case with smartphones, which are self-contained and require nothing from the user. Appearance and features are it. The OS is irrelevant in every way possible. Apple reminds me of the old advertising adage about selling the sizzle, not the steak.

[JackD]

What does Apple do, when it becomes a very successful company? It hires lawyers to sue competitors, and threatens lawsuits, when it have no legal legs to stand on. Remember the Apples' ad, reminiscent of the book 1984, where users of Apple computers are rebeling againest Big Brother. Apple is now Big Brother. I'm happy to say I don't give them any of my money.

If you don't believe me, read this

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/new ... afu-costly

Think it's fashionable to use Apples' products? Think again. And finally, thank you Apple for killing off Soundiver.

[JackD]

Oh, and on a related note, I'm still not buying anything Sony. We all know why!

[The Chase]

Their insecurity is even more obvious than before:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358850,00.asp

even if the Android can be configured to outperform the iPhone, are a lot of customers really going to invest that much time and effort into it?

No configuration necessary. Just install apps and go. Both the Droid and the Nexus One shit on the iphone out of the box.

Comparing it to linux is silly. As easy as certain distros are, you'll still have to type code into the terminal here and there. Android phones aren't geeky or needy at all like that. There are root-access terminal apps for it though

[xh3rv]

This is not the case with smartphones, which are self-contained and require nothing from the user. Appearance and features are it. The OS is irrelevant in every way possible. Apple reminds me of the old advertising adage about selling the sizzle, not the steak.

I think appearance (maybe workflow or UI is what I think of when you say this) and features _is_ the OS. OK, it's a little more complicated than that, but it's basically true that the OS and its core libraries define a huge part of appearance and features and functionality and just what it feels like to use the devices.

The OS is already a problem for Google - http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/goo ... world_news

The other half of the equation is hardware independence, which is another killer IMO - AFAIK there aren't very strict guidelines for what a phone has to support hardware-wise, and this is just like OS fragmentation except hardware really can't be patched via download.

I really think objectively, right at this moment, Apple has to be winning on the details here. More as a matter of opinion, I think it will be difficult or impossible for Google to turn it around, especially in time to make such changes relevant.

Certainly agree the advertising, as always, is bullshit sandwiches

[ericj23]

That's probably becaue I came here without thinking that code-generators, or platform-agnostic code is locked out. Where did you guys read it?

I read it everywhere they quoted the changed terms:

3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

If your code is output from a code-generator it cannot be 'originally written' in 'Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript.' Its originally written in whatever language your code generator uses. There isnt a possible way I can think of to interpret that line as meaning that its okay to use a code generator.

And if you're using platform-agnostic code, most of the ways you'd achieve that pretty much gets covered under being a 'intermediary or compatibility layer or tool'.

Im not really sure how anyone could interpret those bits in such a way as to think code generators and cross-platform tools would be okay.

I'm starting to think that your approval process on the AppStore would be much more strict than Apple's. What is your point, exactly? We should stay away just because you have a twisted interpretation says so?

They approved the Opera mobile browser just this week. This is enough proof that they will allow softwares with language interpreters (Javascript in that case), so game engines with non-hardcoded levels will survive. Same with apps using SQLite, or who knows maybe even Ruby or Python interpreters.

If they're willing to allow a Javascript interpreter, they won't even care about code generators, as long as it compiles with their GCC toolchain.

I also happen to think the iPhone is an overpriced telephone and don't even plan on buying or developing for it, but you're the one doing the FUD game here...

Eh except you are the one using illogocal nonsense

The changed requirements only affect iphone os 4 devices - it does not affect current ones - so your proof that they have just accepted some program into the store is no proof at all

Just wait for the clarification