Apple was right, Adobe get over it?

[robogone]

That is your opinion. No matter how many times and ways you try to prove that these kinds of studies are all rubbish, it still remains your opinion and nothing more. You do hang onto it dearly though, don't you, bringing it up at any "opportunity" regardless of how irrelevant it is to the topic at hand.

[eduardo_b]

That is your opinion. No matter how many times and ways you try to prove that these kinds of studies are all rubbish, it still remains your opinion and nothing more. You do hang onto it dearly though, don't you, bringing it up at any "opportunity" regardless of how irrelevant it is to the topic at hand.

[UltraJv]

This seems to be going very well - carry on

[whyterabbyt]

Rather than attempting to "explain the language", I gave substantial proof that some of the things you said would be prohibited (language interpreters in this case) were not rejected in a recent approval.

Substantial proof of what? An app got through under the existing agreement. Nothing to do with the new agreement which hasn't come into force yet. Try harder, and stop passing off irrelevance as 'substantial proof'.

And learn about tense, FFS. 'would be' is not 'has been'

Instead of making stupid conjectures on how Apple will conduct its business, I suggested just waiting to see how it goes.

If you're not making 'stupid conjectures' why are you so concerned with disproving them with your own conjectures? Yours are somehow less 'stupid' because you say made them? That's just a variation on ad hominem. Still pathetic.

That's not an ad hominen, that's just being sick of you spreading false facts around here.

Something's false because you say it is? Yeah, right.

Just for the record something's either false or a fact, by the way.

FUD means "Fear, uncertainty, doubt", and that's exactly what you are trying to cause.

I dont think you're really in a position to judge what Im 'trying to cause', and probably never will be. As such, your assertion really is nothing more than the ad hominem I described it as.

[debra1rlo]

In this case, showing me that video was the worst thing you could have shown me to prove your argument as there were holes in that study you can drive a truck through.

That is your opinion. No matter how many times and ways you try to prove that these kinds of studies are all rubbish, it still remains your opinion and nothing more. You do hang onto it dearly though, don't you, bringing it up at any "opportunity" regardless of how irrelevant it is to the topic at hand.

No, it's not just my opinion. Others on that thread drew the same conclusions I did. It wasn't difficult to see. Plain and simple, ed, in case you didn't get it the first few times: the guy made claims about buying decisions based solely on one or two issues of different flavors of one brand of jam with little consideration, if any, given to sales of competing jams in the same time period. Dude, that's cut and dry FLAWED research regarding buying decisions. How you can allegedly hold the position you do and allegedly have the education you seem, at times, to possess and not see the glaring error? Because it slapped me in the face it was so obvious. And yes, I can draw far more conclusions from a study where they straight up asked people "what jam did you buy" than that over-thought convoluted mess of a study you are clinging to as gospel.

[cybertron]

Ahh Jobs - still fighting the same fight, over and over and over again. I wonder if this is some personal torment hell for him he is doomed to repeat multiple times across infinite life times.....

What is he supposed to be fighting?

Close systems with ub3r control/validation/permission vs "open systems" which use independant 3rd party development and hardware (aka: The Microsoft and Google approach)

Edit: To boil it down further - and extrapolate based on his assumed personality (being as I havent chatted with him directly) he's fighting to prove that his way of approaching software development and computer systems is far superior to the "environmental"/"evolution" approach that Google and Microsoft use. He thinks that he, as an individual can create a better system than can a massive contributing industry...again - an extrapolation.

[spaceman]

Ahh Jobs - still fighting the same fight, over and over and over again. I wonder if this is some personal torment hell for him he is doomed to repeat multiple times across infinite life times.....

What is he supposed to be fighting?

Close systems with ub3r control/validation/permission vs "open systems" which use independant 3rd party development and hardware (aka: The Microsoft and Google approach)

He is on mobile device front, he isn't on the personal computer front.
Time will tell if it's the right approach.

[cybertron]

Ahh Jobs - still fighting the same fight, over and over and over again. I wonder if this is some personal torment hell for him he is doomed to repeat multiple times across infinite life times.....

What is he supposed to be fighting?

Close systems with ub3r control/validation/permission vs "open systems" which use independant 3rd party development and hardware (aka: The Microsoft and Google approach)

He is on mobile device front, he isn't on the personal computer front.
Time will tell if it's the right approach.

Its the same fight he conducted with the personal computer - hence my point.

[spaceman]

Close systems with ub3r control/validation/permission vs "open systems" which use independant 3rd party development and hardware (aka: The Microsoft and Google approach)

He is on mobile device front, he isn't on the personal computer front.
Time will tell if it's the right approach.

Its the same fight he conducted with the personal computer - hence my point.

OSX isn't closed though.

[cybertron]

Close systems with ub3r control/validation/permission vs "open systems" which use independant 3rd party development and hardware (aka: The Microsoft and Google approach)

He is on mobile device front, he isn't on the personal computer front.
Time will tell if it's the right approach.

Its the same fight he conducted with the personal computer - hence my point.

OSX isn't closed though.

Compared to Windows and Open Source OSX is very closed. Not only that but you cant select what hardware you want to use with the OS (without a hack). The software has to be validated by the Mac/Apple team as well - so very closed.

[Rabid]

The bottom line for me...

I traded my Motorola Q for an iPhone3Gs.
I lost on average 1 1/2 bars of signal strength.
In 2 years I'll be rid of the iPhone and will go back to a phone that has better reception.
When that day comes I will not worry about losing all those $2 apps I bought because I got what I paid for, lots of junk and maybe 3 useful programs that can be easily replaced on another format.

[spaceman]

Compared to Windows and Open Source OSX is very closed. Not only that but you cant select what hardware you want to use with the OS (without a hack). The software has to be validated by the Mac/Apple team as well - so very closed.

Erm.. no it doesn't.

[whyterabbyt]

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)

Just so you know:

They approved the Opera Mini browser just this week. Not the Opera Mobile browser. They're different. Opera Mini doesnt have a Javascript interpreter in it. Any javascript gets interpreted on a server before compressed pages get sent to the browsers.

http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/java ... ra-mini-4/
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/app ... or-iphone/

A browser without an interpreter was approved under the old developer agreement. Here's some 'clever' conjecture about the new developer agreement based on that 'substantial proof':

so game engines with non-hardcoded levels will survive. Same with apps using SQLite, or who knows maybe even Ruby or Python interpreters.

[cybertron]

Compared to Windows and Open Source OSX is very closed. Not only that but you cant select what hardware you want to use with the OS (without a hack). The software has to be validated by the Mac/Apple team as well - so very closed.

Erm.. no it doesn't.

Your arguing that OSX is open and that Apple does not require validation of programs? And that one can use whatever hardware they wish?

[eduardo_b]

And yes, I can draw far more conclusions from a study where they straight up asked people "what jam did you buy" than that over-thought convoluted mess of a study you are clinging to as gospel.

Of course, it's just possible that all of the details of modeling and variables that were accounted for were left out to streamline the information. The book goes into much more detail regarding this and other studies that aren't in the video, but even there the background is limited because the book isn't about how to conduct these kinds of studies but rather the results of them.

In addition, none of these kinds of studies are either-or. The statistical confidence allows conclusions that are significantly true but not all the time for everyone. Marketers do these kinds of studies frequently looking for patterns and trends that will be true more often than not. I assume this reality when reading or seeing results of studies. It's a given that the data is only conclusive to the level of confidence that the statistically valid sample size allows. Exceptions are recognized and expected.

So I'm done discussing this off-topic topic. Back to smartphones, Apple and the meaning of life.