Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Sep 2010 14:08 UTC
Apple Very good news out of Cupertino just now. It took quite a bit of negative press, but Apple has finally caved in: the company is dropping its restriction on third-party development tools for iOS. Also, the company has published all its App Store review guidelines out in the open for the first time. It took a little too long, but very good news nonetheless.
Order by: Score:
jonathane
Member since:
2009-05-31

Apple's blunder was that it introduced the restriction after the platform was already mature. If it had set the restrictive parameters from the outset, it would have had more room to manoeuvre.

Reply Score: 4

kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

Who would have thought?

Do we have the FCC or the courts to thank?

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Google. You have Google to thank. All of these app developers have leverage because of Android's rise.

Reply Score: 10

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Google. You have Google to thank. All of these app developers have leverage because of Android's rise.


What sort of Objective-C/Cocoa support is there in Android?

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

What sort of Objective-C/Cocoa support is there in Android?


That is the point. They want developers to target iOS devices also. Because they know they will lose out in quantity. And they will lose the developers if they don't cater to them. iPhone is essentially a mobile phone with a media player without an app store.

Reply Score: 5

fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

You can in fact program Android in ObjC by means of the NDK and the GNU ObjC compiler.

Nobody have cared to do it [probably because ObjC is such a clusterf**k], but you can do it and Google will not stop you.

Edited 2010-09-10 13:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Good one
by puelocesar on Thu 9th Sep 2010 14:38 UTC
puelocesar
Member since:
2008-10-30

"Now let's grab a bag of chips and watch the Apple fanatics who supported the ban suddenly herald this move as totally justified Cupertino brilliance"

Loved this joke ;)

Reply Score: 10

Caused by competive pressure
by Wondercool on Thu 9th Sep 2010 14:54 UTC
Wondercool
Member since:
2005-07-08

There is no doubt in my mind that this is caused directly as a result of the Andriod assault on the market.

6-9 months ago, Apple looked so strong in the market that Jobs thought he could oust Adobe and set certain rules for developers. After all, where would they go?

The Rules would have the added benefit that if you develop for native Apple API, it would be hard and/or costly to port to another platform.

Then the Droids took over (and still are). Suddenly you are the developer that says: f--k that for a game of soldiers, I want my app to run on any platform with the minimum amount of fuzz, if I am forced by Apple to be locked in to one platform, I might as well develop for the Android platform, that has a lot more freedom and eventually a bigger market share.

Hence, Apple had to come back on its decision.

Edited 2010-09-09 14:57 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Caused by competive pressure
by Tony Swash on Thu 9th Sep 2010 18:48 UTC in reply to "Caused by competive pressure"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

There is no doubt in my mind that this is caused directly as a result of the Andriod assault on the market.

6-9 months ago, Apple looked so strong in the market that Jobs thought he could oust Adobe and set certain rules for developers. After all, where would they go?

The Rules would have the added benefit that if you develop for native Apple API, it would be hard and/or costly to port to another platform.

Then the Droids took over (and still are). Suddenly you are the developer that says: f--k that for a game of soldiers, I want my app to run on any platform with the minimum amount of fuzz, if I am forced by Apple to be locked in to one platform, I might as well develop for the Android platform, that has a lot more freedom and eventually a bigger market share.

Hence, Apple had to come back on its decision.


Wishful thinking.

Is this a sign of weakness or strength?

I tend to see it as a sign of confidence in their app platform. App development and app sales on the iOS shows no sign of slowing and Android is not catching up very fast on the app front so this move was not made to shore up a rickety app eco system.

Even with the Android surge Android apps make a tiny proportion of the income for developers compared to iOS apps so the whole cross platform issue may just be a lot less concern in Cupertino.

Reply Score: 1

robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

Are you kidding me? It hasn't even been 6 months since they initiated the ban, now they're flip flopping. There is a reason why they pulled this 180, but I seriously doubt it's because of their confidence of their platform.

If they're so confident I think they would have held their ground on the ban since they know best.

Some funny notes from the "App Store Review Guidelines"

We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical app. It can get complicated, but we have decided to not allow certain kinds of content in the App Store.

We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don’t need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn’t do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted.

We will reject Apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, “I’ll know it when I see it”. And we think that you will also know it when you cross it.

If your app is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps.

Lastly, we love this stuff too, and honor what you do. We’re really trying our best to create the best platform in the world for you to express your talents and make a living too. If it sounds like we’re control freaks, well, maybe it’s because we’re so committed to our users and making sure they have a quality experience with our products. Just like almost all of you are too.


"If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."
That cracks me up. You may only talk nice about Apple, they never do any wrong.

Reply Score: 7

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."


That's typical of Apple - not just towards developers, but also towards journalists and bloggers. If you don't say nice things about them, they'll ostracise you. No more review items for you. No more press event invites for you.

I can know. It happened to me because I had the audacity to mention how hot the first Intel MacBook Pro became during ordinary use. Despite calling it an awesome machine, best laptop out there, and so on - they still ostracised me because I dared to mention their laptop got hot.

That's Apple. There is no other company in the world who treats the press like that - but it works. Sites like Engadget suck Apple's popcicle, because they know it's bye-bye review items and press invites if they don't. I can't even blame Engadget for it.

Edited 2010-09-09 19:54 UTC

Reply Score: 5

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

""If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."


That's typical of Apple - not just towards developers, but also towards journalists and bloggers. If you don't say nice things about them, they'll ostracise you. No more review items for you. No more press event invites for you.

That's Apple. There is no other company in the world who treats the press like that
"

What a load of crap. It happens the world over. What benefit is there for any company to provide review items or press release invitations for those who continually trash them?

"Oh here, come along to our press release so you can go out and bag what we're doing again, we really enjoy it."

"Here take this evaluation product trash every aspect of it because you don't like us as a company."

There is a significant difference between writing an effective critique and bagging something. If a company does something that is positive for their user community, or indeed reverses a decision that then has perceived positives, spending half the article talking about previous decisions that had perceived negative implications is the sign of a writer who just enjoys bagging that company. As is filling an article with points that only support a perceived negative side of an argument. There have been hundreds of articles written about Apple products over the years that have presented both negative and positive aspects of products and / or decisions. None of those writers were ostracized. It's only those who want to push their negative agenda that will be ignored, and rightly so.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And yet, I've never written a negative Apple review.

Warped much?

Reply Score: 2

jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Dude he said all he said was it got hot, but other then that it was great. That's not continually trash them.

Reply Score: 2

Wondercool Member since:
2005-07-08

If your argument is valid, why did Apple suddenly introduce the draconian new license rules in the first place? If they truely believe the reasons that were given for the license change (Flash is crap and developing in 'intermediate' code leads to bad apps) then why now change.

For me it reinforces the idea that they are afraid, very afraid (and I think they should be, Android looks incredibly strong now, appearing on all sorts of devices, not only phones)

Reply Score: 6

Section 3.2.2
by henderson101 on Thu 9th Sep 2010 14:55 UTC
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

Section 3.2.2 "An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only
be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and
not downloaded....[snip]"

OMFG!!! Things just got interesting again!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Section 3.2.2
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 9th Sep 2010 15:12 UTC in reply to "Section 3.2.2"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Why is that interesting? I thought everyone already knew about that restriction. I thought Adobe's main complaint was that their cool flash to ios code modifier wasn't allowed. I didn't think their main complaint was the lack of flash on ios.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Section 3.2.2
by henderson101 on Fri 10th Sep 2010 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Section 3.2.2"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Why is that interesting?


You can read English, right? I guess so, as you have got this far. Have you even read what it says? No, would be my conclusion. I will paraphrase for you: It states that interpreted code is *now allowed*. That is a HUGE turn around. HUGE. The fact that my comment was voted down pretty much proves that no one is actually looking at this objectively.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Section 3.2.2
by panzi on Thu 9th Sep 2010 15:43 UTC in reply to "Section 3.2.2"
panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

I guess this makes any non-apple JavaScript enabled browser impossible.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Section 3.2.2
by henderson101 on Fri 10th Sep 2010 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Section 3.2.2"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Who cases? Safari is fine. This has set most alternate programming environments free from being obliterated:

Interpreted code may only
be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and
not downloaded.


This is the only real news in the announcement.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Section 3.2.2
by JPowers27 on Thu 9th Sep 2010 15:48 UTC in reply to "Section 3.2.2"
JPowers27 Member since:
2008-07-30

Question: Why does Apple allow web browsers on iOS?

HTML is downloaded code...
JavaScript is downloaded code...
CSS could almost be called code...

Apple is supporting HTML5 which also includes:
* <canvas> which requires a JavaScript to do the drawing.
* MathML which is a coding standard for writing math formulas.

Most of the advances in HTML5 where around making the DOM easier to change via JavaScript and the addition of new events that can trigger JavaScript functions.

If you can't download code... How can you allow JavaScript in a browser?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Section 3.2.2
by robojerk on Thu 9th Sep 2010 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Section 3.2.2"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

Question: Why does Apple allow web browsers on iOS?

HTML is downloaded code...
JavaScript is downloaded code...
CSS could almost be called code...

Apple is supporting HTML5 which also includes:
* which requires a JavaScript to do the drawing.
* MathML which is a coding standard for writing math formulas.

Most of the advances in HTML5 where around making the DOM easier to change via JavaScript and the addition of new events that can trigger JavaScript functions.

If you can't download code... How can you allow JavaScript in a browser?

I believe Safari is exempt. No Chrome, Firefox, or Opera allowed, at least natively.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Section 3.2.2
by wargum on Thu 9th Sep 2010 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Section 3.2.2"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

From daringfireball:

3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple’s built-in WebKit framework.

BTW: HTML is definitely NOT code! ;)

So, same as before, no other browser engines.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Section 3.2.2
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 9th Sep 2010 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Section 3.2.2"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

HTML should not be code. But that didn't stop them from doing this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Htmlscript

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Section 3.2.2
by Kroc on Thu 9th Sep 2010 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Section 3.2.2"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Reminded me of iHTML—a real blast from the past

http://webonastick.com/ihtml.html

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Section 3.2.2
by henderson101 on Fri 10th Sep 2010 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Section 3.2.2"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

From daringfireball:
<snip>


Yeah, I already quoted most of that. Why did you miss it...? oh, OS News readers decided to vote it down.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Section 3.2.2
by tyrione on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Section 3.2.2"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Question: Why does Apple allow web browsers on iOS?

HTML is downloaded code...
JavaScript is downloaded code...
CSS could almost be called code...

Apple is supporting HTML5 which also includes:
* which requires a JavaScript to do the drawing.
* MathML which is a coding standard for writing math formulas.

Most of the advances in HTML5 where around making the DOM easier to change via JavaScript and the addition of new events that can trigger JavaScript functions.

If you can't download code... How can you allow JavaScript in a browser?


Include sanctioned Javascript libraries that work and are certified by WebKit, as part of your application package?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Section 3.2.2
by bouhko on Thu 9th Sep 2010 16:15 UTC in reply to "Section 3.2.2"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

Would a game that includes some scripting capability in its levels (that's what most of games do anyway) and allow players to create and share levels be accepted ?

Because I think that might become a common use case as the number of games increases. The iPad, thanks to its bigger screen, could allow for easy authoring of game content.

Anybody know if some existing iOS games already support that kind of community authoring ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Section 3.2.2
by Stratoukos on Thu 9th Sep 2010 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Section 3.2.2"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

I guess that would depend on the implementation.

If whatever gets shared is written in a programming language, then it would be a definite no.

If in the other hand it's written in a format that can't be said to be a programming language I think it is within the current terms.

For example, a format for a game with a grid could be:

5|2|5|12|23
12|63|2|2|2
54|11|2|4|5

where each number represents an enemy/ally/structure on the board. This is obviously not a programming language, so I don't think that anything is stopping it in the agreement.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Section 3.2.2
by Neolander on Thu 9th Sep 2010 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Section 3.2.2"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Could someone quote the beginning of the license, to see how scripting is defined ?

(In my opinion, this move just means that Apple is trying to ditch the Mac platform, that though highly profitable has not become profitable enough.

Without iOS developers, all that would remain of the Mac user base will be a small amount of geeks and a shrinking part of the media industry. This would allow Apple to make new macs that suck even more than before, to pressure every single extractable dollar out of this small user base, and then finally put the Mac and its OSX platform to rest)

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Section 3.2.2
by Stratoukos on Thu 9th Sep 2010 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Section 3.2.2"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

The relevant excerpt from the slightly outdated agreement in EFF's website:

An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Documented APIs and built- in interpreter(s).

They don't define what "interpreted code" or "executable code" means, so I think it's safe to assume that the difference between "executable code" and "non-executable code" is Turing completeness.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Section 3.2.2
by henderson101 on Fri 10th Sep 2010 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Section 3.2.2"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

The relevant excerpt from the slightly outdated agreement in EFF's website:


Completely outdated you mean surely? That entire quote is no longer present in the license.

They don't define what "interpreted code" or "executable code" means, so I think it's safe to assume that the difference between "executable code" and "non-executable code" is Turing completeness.


It doesn't really matter any more, as both are now allowed. The "downloading" restriction applies to both, so both are on an equal footing on that point.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Section 3.2.2
by Tony Swash on Thu 9th Sep 2010 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Section 3.2.2"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

(In my opinion, this move just means that Apple is trying to ditch the Mac platform, that though highly profitable has not become profitable enough.


Just wait to see what they have to offer with MacOSX 10.7 ;)

I love your wishful thinking - as Apple grows bigger, sells more products, makes more profit, every step is seen as one more towards doom. The poor fools!

Did you ever see the brilliant 1970s British TV comedy Dads Army? It had a character called Frasier, a mournful Scottish undertaker, and at every opportunity he would call out his catchphrase "we're all doomed!!"

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Section 3.2.2
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 9th Sep 2010 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Section 3.2.2"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Just wait to see what they have to offer with MacOSX 10.7


I wish I could tell you what I know about Mac OS X 10.7.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Section 3.2.2
by Tony Swash on Thu 9th Sep 2010 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Section 3.2.2"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

I don't usually do this - which is reprint an article from another web site but this one so pungently critiques the nonsense written and believed by many about Android being great because its open that I decided to post it here in its entirety.

Android Is As Open As The Clenched Fist I’d Like To Punch The Carriers With

MG Siegler
Techcrunch

This past weekend, I wrote a post wondering if Android was surging in the U.S. market because Apple was letting it? The main thought was that by remaining exclusively tied to AT&T, Apple was driving some users to choose Android, which is available on all the U.S. carriers. In the post, I posed a question: if it’s not the iPhone/AT&T deal, why do you choose Android? Nearly 1,000 people responded, and a large percentage focused on the same idea: the idea of “openness.”

You’ll forgive me, but I have to say it: what a load of crap.

In theory, I’m right there with you. The thought of a truly open mobile operating system is very appealing. The problem is that in practice, that’s just simply not the reality of the situation. Maybe if Google had their way, the system would be truly open. But they don’t. Sadly, they have to deal with a very big roadblock: the carriers.

The result of this unfortunate situation is that the so-called open system is quickly revealing itself to be anything but. Further, we’re starting to see that in some cases the carriers may actually be able to exploit this “openness” to create a closed system that may leave you crying for Apple’s closed system — at least their’s looks good and behaves as expected.

Case in point: the last couple of Android phones I’ve gotten as demo units from Google: the EVO 4G and the Droid 2, have been loaded up with crapware installed by the carriers (Sprint and Verizon, respectively). Apple would never let this fly on the iPhone, but the openness of Android means Google has basically no say in the matter. Consumers will get the crapware and they’ll like it. Not only that, plenty of this junk can’t even be uninstalled. How’s that for “open”?

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Earlier this year, Verizon rolled out its own V Cast app store on some BlackBerry devices. This occurred despite that fact that BlackBerry devices have their own app store (App World). From what we’re hearing, Verizon is also planning to launch this store on their Android phones as well in the future. Obviously, this store would be pre-installed, and it would likely be more prominently displayed than Android’s own Market for apps.

Does V Cast have some good content? Probably. But most of it is undoubtedly crap that Verizon is trying to sell you for a high fee. But who cares whether it’s great or it’s crap — isn’t the point of “open” supposed to be that the consumer can choose what they want on their own devices? Instead, open is proving to mean that the carriers can choose what they want to do with Android.

It’s too bad, but there is now a very real risk that the carriers are going to exploit the open system Google set up in order to create a new version of the bullshit proprietary ecosystems that they had before the iPhone came along and turned the market on its side.

And it’s not just Verizon, it’s all the carriers. One of the great features of Android is that you can install apps without going through an app store, right? Well, not if you have an a Motorola Backflip or a HTC Aria running on AT&T — they’ve locked this feature down. How? Thanks to the open Android OS.

Oh, and how about tethering? It’s one of the truly great features of Android 2.2, right? Well, not if you have a carrier that doesn’t want to support it. Google has to defer to them to enable their own native OS feature. It’s such an awesome feature — in the hands of Google. Once the carriers get their hands on it — not so much.

Speaking of Android 2.2, you know it’s out there right? You’ll be forgiven if you don’t because a whopping 4.5 percent of you Android users are currently running it, according to Google’s dashboard. And again, that’s not Google’s fault, that’s all the carriers. Incredibly, over 35 percent of you still aren’t even running any version of Android 2.x. It’s pathetic.

Apple gets crap for not supporting phones that are three years old with OS updates — the open Android system can’t even upgrade phones that are only a few months old in some cases — again, all thanks to the carriers.

The excuses for why this is run rampant. They need to tweak their custom skins, they need to test the new software, etc. It’s all a bunch of garbage. This is an open platform and yet you’re more restricted than on Apple’s supposedly closed one.

What happens when Verizon won’t update your phone to the latest greatest Android software — not because they can’t, but because they want you to upgrade to a new piece of hardware and sign the new two-year agreement that comes along with it? The game remains the same.

My point is not to bash Google — what they’ve created is an excellent mobile operating system. My point is that the same “openness” that Android users are touting as a key selling point of the OS could very well end up being its weak point. If you don’t think Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint are going to try to commandeer the OS in an attempt to return to their glory days where we were all slaves to their towers, you’re being naive.

“Open” is great until you have to define it or defend it. I’m not sure Google can continue to do either in this situation.

And before all of you pros storm the comments with how great it is to root your Android phones, consider the average consumers here. They are the ones being screwed by this exploitation of “open.” Anyone with the desire to do so can fairly easily hack an iPhone too. Open is not a reason to choose Android + carrier vs. iPhone + AT&T.

Update: Oh, and one more great example Michael Prassel reminded me of in the comments — do you want Skype on your Android phone? Well, I hope you have Verizon because otherwise you won’t be able to install it. “Open.” We’re only going to see more of this, not less.



Original here
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/09/android-open/

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Section 3.2.2
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Section 3.2.2"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Dude, that's copyright infringement. Righthaven will get you.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Section 3.2.2
by fatjoe on Fri 10th Sep 2010 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Section 3.2.2"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

Did you just quote "MG Siegler"?? Thats like quoting Steve Jobs himself! (for all we know, they could be the same person)


Didn't Siegler publish an article a few week back claiming that http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/05/apple-android/">Android ??

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Section 3.2.2
by Neolander on Thu 9th Sep 2010 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Section 3.2.2"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Just wait to see what they have to offer with MacOSX 10.7 ;)

I've seen OSX 10.5 where after highly mocking Vista, Apple made the perfect Mac equivalent of it : a bloated, unpolished release, full of shiny-but-impractical features, that looks pushed forward while it was not yet ready.

I've seen OSX 10.6 too. After "The most powerful release of Mac OSX. Yet.", it was "The most unexciting and unpolished release of Mac OSX. Yet.". It's advertised as a cleanup rewrite, but it doesn't even do the cleanup fully and properly. Where's the full rewrite in Cocoa ? Apple are good at complaining that Adobe does not use the latest API, not at using it themselves. And why are there several versions of quicktime bundled ? Couldn't they just make the new release compatible with older codecs or port the codecs themselves ? Also, what's with this incredibly buggy release ? I've never seen as much people complaining as by the time of OSX 10.6's release.

Then, there's the recent (since the end of 2008) evolution of Mac hardware. Outdated hardware, less sensible pricing, higher failure rate, crazily impractical new pointing devices, shiny screens.

So well, let's see if Apple redeem themselves with OSX 10.7. At the moment, I've yet to see the modern equivalent of my mother's PowerBook G4 in the new mac universe : simple, fast, efficient, reliable, and, most important, well-polished.

I love your wishful thinking - as Apple grows bigger, sells more products, makes more profit, every step is seen as one more towards doom. The poor fools!

How is ditching the mac dooming Apple ? To the contrary, that is a risky move that must be well-thought, but if they're successful Apple can make millions from this move.
-Much reduced piracy and much higher income through the App Store system
-Even more captive customers
-Only one codebase to maintain
-Selling things using the iPhone + iTouch popularity. Like with the mandatory use of Xcode, but even more efficient
-Imposing market decisions more easily ("No more fsckin' users installing VLC to read all videos and not just our wonderful H.264 videos ! If VLC comes up, we will just get it out of the App Store, because it is violating the DMCA")
-And many other reasons why this is pure genius...

Seen the multitouch trackpad of the new iMacs ? The nightmarish interface of laptops being ported to the desktop. "The same technology as on the iPhone" say Apple. Don't you think that this is all going somewhere ?

If I had to continue building up a scenario, I'd guess that Apple would start with the MacBook Air. Nobody likes this failed netbook competitor wannabe anyway, so it won't be missed if the experiment fails. Apple would sell something looking like a 13 inch iPad with usb ports, labeling it as the new macbook air ("Simpler. Safer. Shinier.").

Some times before, they would probably have introduced some OSX viruses based on holes in their never-updated libraries, to make the life of mac users nightmarish. The new macbook air would be presented as a curated computer, guaranteed virus-free due to the App Store (tm) system, and hassle-free thanks to its new multitouch screen.

To make people fall in such an obvious trap, Apple would have to introduce some killer features too. They have some talent for this. My personal guess is haptic feedback on the touchscreen, for a virtual keyboard that finally feels like a real keyboard, offers similar typing speed, and is usable by visually impaired people. Apple has filed a patent for it some times ago.

A file browser can also be expected (because laptop use cases require it), but with only the user folder accessible : system and applications folder will be gone, / directory will be unavailable. In the user folder, most things related to Apple software and application data will be hidden. The iTunes folder, as an example.

TimeMachine will be flagged as outdated. In the keynote, Jobs will explain that consumer storage media are just not reliable enough to store our precious data, and unveil the new release of MobileMe that can store your full TimeMachine backup for only $15/month ("Unlimited storage. At an unbelievable price").

Does it still look that unlikely ?

Edited 2010-09-09 22:51 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Section 3.2.2
by aesiamun on Fri 10th Sep 2010 05:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Section 3.2.2"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Then, there's the recent (since the end of 2008) evolution of Mac hardware. Outdated hardware, less sensible pricing, higher failure rate, crazily impractical new pointing devices, shiny screens.


Wait so my early 2010 core i7 Macbook Pro is outdated? This was built in April...there were few i7 laptops out there...

Edited 2010-09-10 05:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Section 3.2.2
by Neolander on Fri 10th Sep 2010 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Section 3.2.2"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, sure there were few laptops with a core i7m, due to its price tag it's targeted at very high end computers, which most laptops are not... But which Apple computers pretend to be, looking at their price tag. And, as usual, they're late. Long gone is the time where Apple introduced backlit keyboards and LED screens to the computer world...
-The MacBook and Mac Mini are still using a C2D processor... How many time since Intel launched the Core line ? Those machines cost $700 and more, we can expect recent hardware at this price.
-i don't remember how much time it took apple to get rid of the GeForce 9400 chipsets, but they were still using them when there was better alternatives available.
-And earlier they used the x600 chipset series, known for its ability to burn on computers like modern Macbooks were silence is favored over ventilation efficiency.
-I'm still waiting for that mac with a bluray player. As funny as it is to use, the SuperDrive is getting old on those very high-priced machines. But I guess Apple don't want to threaten their iTunes hd movie rental revenue...
-For $1000, the new MacBook is positioned as a very high end computer. Few laptops reach that price tag. 2 GB ram sounds then... Well... Scarce. Especially considering how cheap ram is.
-On the area of connectivity, Apple has heard about gigabit ethernet, but what about eSata ? Gigabit ethernet, like USB3, is still far from being common, eSata on the other hand...

Edited 2010-09-10 06:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Section 3.2.2
by henderson101 on Fri 10th Sep 2010 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Section 3.2.2"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

I've seen OSX 10.5 where... <snip>


We can reduce this entirely to "I'm not a fan of Apple, or at least, Macs and Mac OS X." What everyone with your argument miss is that Apple don't care about market share or whether you can afford or even want their products. That is what irks people like you. That is why most of your venting is pure white noise. Deal with it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Section 3.2.2
by Neolander on Fri 10th Sep 2010 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Section 3.2.2"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

We can reduce this entirely to "I'm not a fan of Apple, or at least, Macs and Mac OS X." What everyone with your argument miss is that Apple don't care about market share or whether you can afford or even want their products. That is what irks people like you. That is why most of your venting is pure white noise. Deal with it.

Read twice and pay more attention when you read, please. Prove that human brain keeps the ability to think objectively after prolonged exposure to Apple marketting.

If you still can't get it, tell me and I will tell you why this is not simply "I don't like macs and OSX".

Edited 2010-09-10 16:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Section 3.2.2
by Morgan on Sat 11th Sep 2010 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Section 3.2.2"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You had me until this:

Some times before, they would probably have introduced some OSX viruses based on holes in their never-updated libraries, to make the life of mac users nightmarish. The new macbook air would be presented as a curated computer, guaranteed virus-free due to the App Store (tm) system, and hassle-free thanks to its new multitouch screen.


Sorry, I can almost believe the big antivirus companies may have done this in the past to boost sales, but I seriously doubt Apple could, or would, do something like that. The potential backlash if found out would destroy the company, and these days it's way too easy to get caught with your hand in the till.

For one thing, the order would have to come from Jobs himself (remember, Apple as it stands today IS Steve Jobs), which leaves plenty of opportunities for some Apple employee with morals to find out and blow the whistle. Besides, Jobs himself is so obsessed with the perceived perfection of the Mac and OS X that I doubt he'd stoop to that level. It would be like a Jesuit priest screaming blasphemous obscenities about Christ, while burning bibles.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Section 3.2.2
by Neolander on Sat 11th Sep 2010 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Section 3.2.2"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You could be right. And after all, this is all speculation. I'm not yet ready to bet it would actually happen in the future, contrary to my bet about JavaScript games on another topic ;) I was just trying to demonstrate that Apple could be interested in ditching OSX in favor of iOS on its mac line, and could do it while keeping a sensible part of the Mac user base...

Reply Score: 2

Github
by mweichert on Thu 9th Sep 2010 14:57 UTC
mweichert
Member since:
2006-03-23

Can't wait to see all the Ruby/iPhone apps appear on Github... ;)

Reply Score: 1

Good stuff.
by wargum on Thu 9th Sep 2010 15:10 UTC
wargum
Member since:
2006-12-15

Classical "Jobs one eighty". Good stuff. I love it! ;)

And now back to game development in Unity3D...

PS: Thank you Google for giving Apple a little bit of pressure with Android ^^

Reply Score: 2

This is...
by Tuishimi on Thu 9th Sep 2010 15:18 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...totally justified Cupertino brilliance!1!!!



(ha ha - see previous posts)

Reply Score: 6

...or in other words
by z4ziggy on Thu 9th Sep 2010 15:20 UTC
z4ziggy
Member since:
2010-09-09

...or in other words, the board of directors informed Jobs that as much as they adore his ego trip they are more intrested in net profit.

Reply Score: 3

Just so you know...
by thavith_osn on Thu 9th Sep 2010 15:43 UTC
thavith_osn
Member since:
2005-07-11

I am one of the fanbois who was not happen when Apple first did this.

Apple make quite a few mistakes, and this was one of them. Now they have done a 180 and that is a great thing, but it's a shame they needed to in the first place.

I will be interested to see what we can build.

One thing for certain, Apple will think twice before heading down this road again.

I can't think it was pressure from lack of software being written, and certainly sales of iPhones are still doing exceptionally well, so it's an interesting turn of events...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just so you know...
by apoclypse on Thu 9th Sep 2010 18:48 UTC in reply to "Just so you know..."
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Well that's the thing. Despite Apple's own rule there were very little appstore rejections based on it. Plenty of Unity based games were accepted after the rule. I'm not sure about other projects like monotouch. Unity is probably in class of its own, it actually uses Apple's pipeline (xcode, etc), eventhough it uses mono for scripting.

Either way this is great news for the Unity community. They are probably rejoicing as I know a lot of people were holding their projects until Unity or Apple resolved the issue.

Reply Score: 2

v Caves are for Trolls
by kaelodest on Thu 9th Sep 2010 16:26 UTC
RE: Caves are for Trolls
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 9th Sep 2010 18:28 UTC in reply to "Caves are for Trolls"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

f I want to program for Windows I would need to know dot-net if I want to program for the Mac I need to know my way around XCode


Not true, at all. I can program windows or Mac just fine with python + GTK, or Java, or Fortran or raw native C. or assembly, or ada, or zfunge, or haskell, or Go, or Eiffel or any other language known to man in any editor I please and with any complier of my choosing as well.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Caves are for Trolls
by kaelodest on Thu 9th Sep 2010 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Caves are for Trolls"
kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

Wooops My Bad. That was a gross generalization and simplification on my part. I was thinking along the lines of how a new programmer might go about the task.

The programmers who think Flash+iPhone=Game scare me a Lot. In the days between win3.1 and win98 there were a lot of shareware apps (and a lot on the Mac too) and Windows made some 'questionable' choices for the ease of the developer and left a lot of cracks and crags in the foundation. I think that the iOS is going to go through a lot of the same issues as it matures. And some of this will happen regardless of what Apple Co. does. - I know I can write a leaky app in Cocoa, I would just prefer not to have flash doing things that it was not really designed for nor have a leaky runtime.
~Nope! that is yet another simplification. In Cocoa I prefer to release and retain manually. The iOS does not have real Garbage Collection. So this means that I have to know what I am doing and pay attention a little more - That is good for me because I will then have my eyes on the long term goal of what I am doing, and it makes me a better coder at least strictly in the mechanical sense. If I am correct in that flash is leaky (and it certainly is inefficient) then developers for that platform may need to refactor it a little. Cross the T's and dot the I's. If they can build a fast and clean flash app for OSX and iOS then prove me wrong.

Again this is just my two cents from my little car in the race. And that I will not apologize for

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Caves are for Trolls
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 10th Sep 2010 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Caves are for Trolls"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I understand your concern, but as long as developers wer able to use their tools of choice, the cream would rise to the top. My favorite apps on windows, are not written in .net ( whose are??). On Mac ... Well, yes the best ones are probably written with Cocoa, but not even all of Apple's apps are written in cocoa. If the cocoa/python or cocoa /java bindings were actually maintained, then I would actually do more native coding on a Mac. As it is, I'm trying to avoid it. ( this is a complete 180 from 2005, when I bought my first, and probably last mac).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Caves are for Trolls
by fatjoe on Fri 10th Sep 2010 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Caves are for Trolls"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

The iOS does not have real Garbage Collection. So this means that I have to know what I am doing and pay attention a little more - That is good for me because I will then have my eyes on the long term goal of what I am doing, and it makes me a better coder at least strictly in the mechanical sense.


If Steve Jobs mandated everyone to code with their right hand only, you would have praised him for making you more efficient since it allows you to code and read/play games/masturbate/whatever at the same time ;)


PS. What do you mean "will not apologize"?? your whole post was a big Apple apology...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Caves are for Trolls
by kaelodest on Fri 10th Sep 2010 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Caves are for Trolls"
kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

whoa buddy that is a lot to put out there. By the way I spend my non work time raising my two wonderful children or volunteering in a charter school. I am an Apple Stockholder and Longtime Apple Developer. I may not be the best but I am pretty good. I will use the tools i like (for me) to get the job done. I am not suggesting that you do anything except maybe troll elsewhere. I am not some uncritical fanboy. I just know that I do what I get paid for and I get paid for what I do. The GNU is great, but it urges a sense of entitlement.

Here is an easy example. You can come to my house and eat for free. My Dinner parties are lively and friendly. If you ask for a plate to take to your wife I am honored. I am more than happy to share the recipe with you if you ask, and if you think that I have too much thyme or marjoram in it we can talk about it. BUT if I am in a restaurant and I am eating a meal that I just paid for then I do not think that you have any real right to sit down and eat my food, or just walk into the kitchen and fix a plate.

Where I work I am DISALLOWED from sharing code. I am not even allowed to describe my job my role or even the building. I understand that the church of stallmanology makes it seem that you have a right to see and inspect my code. The best thing that I can do for free is to help students understand that a computer is for more than surfing the web and watching videos.

I am not perfect, apple is not perfect, Stallman and Joy (while exceptionally great) are not perfect and the world is just how it is meant to be. BUT if you get to that promised land be sure to send me a postcard.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Caves are for Trolls
by fatjoe on Fri 10th Sep 2010 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Caves are for Trolls"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

Did you reply to the correct comment?

For the records, I think Stallman looks like a caveman and should go out more. Not to say that I don't like using GCC for free, but I am not a Stallman groupie.

You on the other hand...

Reply Score: 1

Google Voice
by aldob1 on Thu 9th Sep 2010 18:06 UTC
aldob1
Member since:
2010-09-09

Good, maybe they will finally now allow google voice integration!

Reply Score: 2

Props
by Moochman on Thu 9th Sep 2010 20:49 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Props to Apple for actually having the courage to change their mind on this one. Now I can add the iOS to the list of target platforms for my next Flex-based app ;) .

Reply Score: 2

Translation
by BallmerKnowsBest on Thu 9th Sep 2010 21:02 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

"We are continually trying to make the App Store even better," Apple writes, "We have listened to our developers and taken much of their feedback to heart. Based on their input, today we are making some important changes to our iOS Developer Program license in sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.9 to relax some restrictions we put in place earlier this year."

Here's what I get when I run that quote through a PR-to-English translator:

"The success of Android and others has us running scared, so now we're doing some backpedalling in a desperate attempt to avoid being marginalized once again."

But don't worry - even though this is exactly what I predicted would happen, I won't say "I told you so" just yet. For that, I'm waiting until Apple backpedals far enough to finally allow Flash onto the iProducts. Going by current trends, that will happen about 6 months from now.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Translation
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Sep 2010 05:01 UTC in reply to "Translation"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

""We are continually trying to make the App Store even better," Apple writes, "We have listened to our developers and taken much of their feedback to heart. Based on their input, today we are making some important changes to our iOS Developer Program license in sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.9 to relax some restrictions we put in place earlier this year."


Here's what I get when I run that quote through a PR-to-English translator:

"The success of Android and others has us running scared, so now we're doing some backpedalling in a desperate attempt to avoid being marginalized once again."
"

Amazing ... I was thinking exactly the same thing. Perhaps there is something wrong with me today?

:D

Anyway, here is an article which indicates the state of play with respect to exactly how much Android might be pressuring the iPhone recently:

http://www.intomobile.com/2010/09/09/android-10k-apps-market-80k/

The Android market has grown from “50 applications two years ago to more than 80,000 applications today.”

Google is activating over 200,000 devices a day.

Android also outsold the iPhone in Q2 2010.

Phones with Google’s mobile OS grabbed 27% of last quarter’s smartphone sales, while the iPhone trailed slightly behind with a 23% share.


Interesting.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Translation
by Tony Swash on Fri 10th Sep 2010 10:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Translation"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"[q]"We are continually trying to make the App Store even better," Apple writes, "We have listened to our developers and taken much of their feedback to heart. Based on their input, today we are making some important changes to our iOS Developer Program license in sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.9 to relax some restrictions we put in place earlier this year."


Here's what I get when I run that quote through a PR-to-English translator:

"The success of Android and others has us running scared, so now we're doing some backpedalling in a desperate attempt to avoid being marginalized once again."
"

Amazing ... I was thinking exactly the same thing. Perhaps there is something wrong with me today?

:D

Anyway, here is an article which indicates the state of play with respect to exactly how much Android might be pressuring the iPhone recently:

http://www.intomobile.com/2010/09/09/android-10k-apps-market-80k/

The Android market has grown from “50 applications two years ago to more than 80,000 applications today.”

Google is activating over 200,000 devices a day.

Android also outsold the iPhone in Q2 2010.

Phones with Google’s mobile OS grabbed 27% of last quarter’s smartphone sales, while the iPhone trailed slightly behind with a 23% share.


Interesting. [/q]

The thing is if, this was a sign of weakness then presumeably it would be a weakness on the App front. This after all is a measure likely to increase or broaden the number of apps on the iPhone from different sources. If Apple really did feel pressured into doing this then it would logically have to be because they felt pressure in relations to the comparative app situation of iOS in relation to other platforms such as Android.

The problem is that there is not the slightest evidence that Apple is feeling competitive pressure on the App front. Apple's App Store still has lots more Apps than its nearest competitors, developers are still making a lot (really a lot) more money on the App Store than on any other platform, the Apple App development framework continues to be undated, improved and highly appreciated by developers.

So where is the pressure on Apple on the App front?

My feeling is that this is a tidying up of the rules once Apple had a look at the various issues it was concerned about and decided it was not particularly threatened by some of stuff it had previously blocked. Its still not supporting Flash itself and the new rules still block development frameworks like Adobe's AIR.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Translation
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 10th Sep 2010 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Translation"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

If Apple really did feel pressured into doing this then it would logically have to be because they felt pressure in relations to the comparative app situation of iOS in relation to other platforms such as Android.

The problem is that there is not the slightest evidence that Apple is feeling competitive pressure on the App front.


So because their hasn't been a mass, overnight defection of developers from iOS to Android, you believe that Apple isn't threatened by Android's success? Yeah, that makes sense... if you suffer from myopia so severe that it borders on blindness.

So where is the pressure on Apple on the App front?


Do you honestly fail to realize that most developers (especially commercial developers) prefer to target the platform with the most users? The iProducts may have entrenchment and momentum on their side, but that alone doesn't keep you on top for ever (look at Palm, or Apple in the 1980s). Not if there's ultimately more money to be made developing for Android.

Apple is just taking an action now, instead of waiting until they're inevitably forced to. They're terrified of Android vs iOS becoming a repeat of Windows vs MacOS, so much so that they're willing to take preemptive steps and compromise their "ideals" to stop it from happening.

Its still not supporting Flash itself and the new rules still block development frameworks like Adobe's AIR.


And, in the process, Apple has given a gift-wrapped, hand-delivered competitive advantage to every other smartphone OS and handset maker. Soon the iPhone will be the only smartphone lacking even an optional way to view Flash content, that's when Jobs' little vendetta against Adobe will really start blowing up in his face (and I'll be there with popcorn in hand).

Reply Score: 3

I support, oops don't support the ban
by shashank_hi on Fri 10th Sep 2010 00:34 UTC
shashank_hi
Member since:
2009-08-27

This is great news for iOS application developers, and therefore, for iOS users the world over. Now let's grab a bag of chips and watch the Apple fanatics who supported the ban suddenly herald this move as totally justified Cupertino brilliance (I kid, I kid).


Ah let's see. Ooh, I love Apple so much. This was such an awesome decision. Just like when then made that awesome decision to keep Flash out. Take that Android...

Sarcasm aside, as an iPhone owner and user, I'm glad to see more flexibility.

For the random rejection policy, it might be better if Apple allows developers to submit plans for approval. Could save development time. Honestly, why can't they have content rating like movies and games for explicit apps?

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Ah let's see. Ooh, I love Apple so much. This was such an awesome decision. Just like when then made that awesome decision to keep Flash out. Take that Android...

Sarcasm aside, as an iPhone owner and user, I'm glad to see more flexibility.

For the random rejection policy, it might be better if Apple allows developers to submit plans for approval. Could save development time. Honestly, why can't they have content rating like movies and games for explicit apps?


I've heard it said that Apple's policies on Apps is actually all about preserving the DRM.

If that is the case, what does everyone think about the chances for this new App?

http://www.intomobile.com/2010/09/09/vlc-for-the-ipad-waiting-for-a...
So you got yourself a brand spanking new iPad and soon you quickly realized that none of the files you grabbed off those semi-illegal sites on the internet work. What is a movie aficionado such as yourself going to do? Luckily the folks at Applidium are trying to help out by porting the open source VLC project to the iPad. They say they’ve already spent several months on the project, and that the application is now waiting to be approved for submission into Apple’s App Store.

If everything goes smoothly, then in one to two weeks you should be able to install an application on your iPad that can play just about every single type of video you can find on the internet.


Somehow, I don't think so.

Reply Score: 2

"I know it when I see it"
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 10th Sep 2010 18:06 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

Wow, that's probably the first time in history that anyone has referenced the "I know it when I see it" line not only in a positive light, but to back their own position. Normally that quote is referenced either sarcastically or as an example of tautological/circular reasoning, and an intellectually-lazy "because I say so" cop out.

What's next, is Apple going to start appealing to "community standards" and "family values" to justify app store rejections?

Reply Score: 3