Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 495 posts

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#101

Post by bad_user »

papachito wrote: post #79
api wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been a very loyal mac user for years and love it, but I'm seriously considering going back to Linux. I am not a free software "zealot" and don't mind some closed-ness, but this is getting absolutely insane. Enforcing which LANGUAGES can be used on a platform?!? Insane! Edit: I've been looking at these guys: http://www.system76.com/ (I don't work with or have any vested interest in them, but they look cool.)

> I am not a free software "zealot" and don't mind some closed-ness Maybe we were not that zealot after all when we free software "zealot" said that proprietary software allow their owners to treat their users badly and that eventually, this happens to every proprietary software. Just saying. It amazes me how surprised users of proprietary software are every time they get screwed by their masters even though this has…

There are products and there are platforms.

Products are OK to be proprietary as long as the value provided is top-notch. Sorry, but I don't see profesional designers using Gimp over Photoshop.

Relying on a platform for your existence is a different story. But as a business you need alliances with other businesses, and not just in software. And everybody can pull the plug on you, that's why reputation matters and in many cases it's all you need.

About free software, programmers need to eat too. Myself I use open-source everywhere, but for the last 7 years I've been doing consultancy work (turn-key apps that are never released in any form or web services that put a lock on your data ... the worst kind of closed systems). And until you'll teach me a business model that would empower me to work on "free software" while providing for my family, then I'll keep doing it.

Until then it's only fair I get paid for my work, that's why I consider the free software philosophy as extremist bullshit.

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#102

Post by jrockway »

mortenjorck wrote: post #76
raganwald wrote: post #46

Getting away from the frenzied rhetoric, my opinion is that what Apple really wants to prevent is people releasing multi-platform compilers. So taking Flash as just one example, if I can build one app and the compiler can make me an iPhone executable, an Android executable, and so forth, Apple don't want that. In my experience so far with such "cross platform compatibility layers," they always produce results that wa…

If the cross-platform experience is subpar, Apple should just let these apps fail in the market.

The average person's tolerance for faulty software is lower than it should be. I guess Apple wants to raise expectations, so that people are locked into the iPhone. ("OMG, that android app has ITS OWN KEYBOARD!!!111".)

Of course, this is why I don't use C, C++, or Objective-C. I'm always a little surprised when someone writes code in one of those languages that actually runs.

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#103

Post by aphyr »

pyre wrote: post #21
aphyr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubtful. Adobe, Appcelerator, et al are not in competition with Apple, only making products which run on theirs. The ToS have always been disclosed as variable. It's a good reason not to predicate your business model on the whims of another company which has no stake in your success. :/

You could say the same thing about developing software for any platform that isn't open. None of these companies could have foreseen that Apple would drop the hammer on the creation of tools to help developers create more iPhone applications. They still have to pay Apple to develop for the iPhone. It's not like this was some end-run around the system.

Some companies are interested in having their ecosystem succeed and keep their agreements largely stable. Developing software for Microsoft is typically a solid proposition, for example; they're unlikely to change the agreement as to what toolkit you can use after the fact.

Apple, on the other hand, has shown a somewhat... avaricious... approach to the app store, rejecting applications for curvy buttons, speech bubbles, or being able to load arbitrary images from the internet. We should all realize that Apple will allow precisely what it wants to with respect to the app store, and nothing more. They don't need to do anything else; consumers will buy their products regardless of how the apps can be created.

I don't like it, but I definitely saw it coming. :/

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#104

Post by jrockway »

spolsky wrote: post #32
aheilbut wrote: post #22

In principle, couldn't any of these translation layers be converted to code generators that would produce compiled Obj-C that would fall within the rules? Surely they aren't saying that all code has to be entirely hand-written? If so, then is running search-and-replace on a source file not allowed?

the wording says "Applications must be ORIGINALLY written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript"

I've just invented a new language: C2010. It looks exactly like ActionScript, for some reason...

(Hint: Apple's version of C is unlike any standard version of C, like C99. So technically, you can't use Apple's tools. Or, you can call anything you want C, just like they do.)

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#105

Post by jrockway »

tumult wrote: post #54

This is unsavory in the extreme. I had been writing an iPhone app in Haskell, and now I have to can it? What the fuck? Fuck you, Apple! Blowhards. Hope you guys enjoy the mass exodus of decent developers from your dumbass platform with kiddie languages.

GHC has a C backend. Just claim that you wrote that code yourself. Problem solved.

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#107

Post by ptomato »

tumult wrote: post #87
ptomato wrote: post #52

Problems with it aside, and I certainly don't like it anymore then anyone else here (I was still hoping to get a lisp working for iPhone development), I think it would be wrong to attribute the decision to malice. Apple's doing this for the exact same reason they do EVERYTHING else controversial that they do on iPhone OS: because the primary (only?) thing they care about is the end user experience being as good as po…

No, they're clearly doing this to lock people down and prevent strong innovation on their platform. They want tons of toy apps, but nothing threatening. They don't want people abstracting over their platform. They are deliberately restricting developer freedom. If they wanted to avoid crap apps, they would just reject crap apps. They don't care about that. They want to prevent developers from innovating on top of the…

Really? Bullshit. You honestly believe that stuff made in Obj-C can only be a toy whereas something written in ActionScript will bring the "strong innovation"? Yes, they're certainly restricting developer freedom (which, again, I don't like any more then anyone else), for the same reason they have been in the past: because they don't want their users to have a shitty experience.

I mean, how the hell do you define a "cute toy" vs. an actually innovative app? What's something that is more innovative on Android, say, or a Pre that isn't there on an iPhone? (Google Voice being the obvious exception, but again with the everything-Apple-does-is-about-UX thing.)

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#108

Post by city41 »

Zak wrote: post #75
api wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been a very loyal mac user for years and love it, but I'm seriously considering going back to Linux. I am not a free software "zealot" and don't mind some closed-ness, but this is getting absolutely insane. Enforcing which LANGUAGES can be used on a platform?!? Insane! Edit: I've been looking at these guys: http://www.system76.com/ (I don't work with or have any vested interest in them, but they look cool.)

Boycotting the Mac platform (which is pretty much free of any such absurdity) doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That's where Apple is doing things right . You should of course, shun iPhone OS devices if you feel this way. The system76 laptops are probably generic machines from Clevo, Sager or some such with a custom badge. Alienware used to do the same thing.

If I had to guess, the iPhone and iPod Touch are seen as more successful endeavors to Apple than the Mac has been of late. So I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's iPhone policies start leaking their way onto the Mac too.

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#109

Post by axod »

jrockway wrote: post #100
axod wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just make a webapp :/ all the freedom you need.

Seems like Apple thinks the same restriction applies. If you use parenscript or coffeescript (or GWT) to generate your JavaScript, you are technically violating the contract you signed with Apple. Of course, if you didn't sign that, then you can do whatever you want.

If they started actively censoring/blocking websites that they determine haven't written javascript by hand, then that would be theonion.com territory (And the end of their sales) :)

Re: New iPhone Agreement Bans Flash-to-iPhone Compiler & Others

#110

Post by [deleted] »

mortenjorck wrote: post #76
raganwald wrote: post #46

Getting away from the frenzied rhetoric, my opinion is that what Apple really wants to prevent is people releasing multi-platform compilers. So taking Flash as just one example, if I can build one app and the compiler can make me an iPhone executable, an Android executable, and so forth, Apple don't want that. In my experience so far with such "cross platform compatibility layers," they always produce results that wa…

If the cross-platform experience is subpar, Apple should just let these apps fail in the market.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN