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

111–120 of 495 posts

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

#111

Post by minalecs »

bad_user wrote: post #101
papachito wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

lets see theres training, and consulting, theres offer the free version, and charge for a more robust paid version, theres pay for customization and don't forget ads. There are many ways to have a business model around "free software". Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software".

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

#114

Post by funxed »

aheilbut wrote: post #43
spolsky wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It seems absurd and unenforcable; I mean, applications are originally written in my head.

Since Apple completely controls the App Store and reserves the right to refuse any app for any reason (and have shown time and again they are willing to exercise that right), how could this possibly be unenforceable? It is their way or the highway. What is or isn't enforceable is entirely up to them.

Note: I am in no way saying that Apple's stance on this situation is a good one or not, in face, absurd. The iPhone 3G is the last Apple product I will ever buy because of this and other iPod/iPad related anti-developer bullcrap.

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

#115

Post by axod »

archgrove wrote: post #89

I can think of only two (tenuously) justifiable reasons for this. 1 - Perhaps, during the beta, they want code written in C (and derivatives) to aid in debugging framework bugs. Rather than "My App doesn't WORK!!!!! (Using MonoTouch Vxxyy)", they can get a repro using a stack they know and control top to bottom. In this case, I can see it as justified. 2 - If it's specifically to target cross-compilers as a business…

Surely there's also the approval process?

Checking an app isn't doing anything malicious may be easier if it's written with standard tools.

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

#116

Post by tumult »

jrockway wrote: post #105
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.

I don't want to invest months of my life, only to be told, "sorry, if you can't prove it's C, your app is rejected. Bye."

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

#117

Post by Raphael »

markkoberlein wrote: post #92
Zak wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder if Leo Laporte is going to be right about how he thinks that will Apple eventually stop making macs so that they can focus on more closed or controlled platforms like the iPod, iPhone, and now the iPad. They seem to be pretty good at making money with the closed systems. Maybe the next iBook will just be a foldable iPad with the same closed OS.

I predict the differences will shrink and disappear. The desktops and laptops will get touch input and iPhone apps, and the closed platforms will round out in specs and features.

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

#118

Post by bad_user »

minalecs wrote: post #111
bad_user wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

lets see theres training, and consulting, theres offer the free version, and charge for a more robust paid version, theres pay for customization and don't forget ads. There are many ways to have a business model around "free software". Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software".

> Red Hat, Canonical, and Google are just some of the companies that have found valid business models around "free software".

That's a fallacy.

The majority of open-source sponsors are selling closed systems or services to sponsor their "free software" involvement. Google doesn't have a business model around "free software". Neither does IBM or Sun.

I'm also not Mozilla and my apps would probably never get in front of 40% of all Internet users. Even if I'm that lucky, it's probably not going to be a desktop app that's used to search for stuff.

To get paid for customizations, your software also has to be really popular for businesses (consumers don't pay for that, they either endure it or search for something better).

Did I mentioned that I don't live in Silicon Valley nor in Cambridge, but in an Eastern European country? So training is off.

I already mentioned consulting, but then I would be a hypocrite if I promoted the free software ideology while working on the worst kind of closed software, wouldn't I?

Anything else?

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

#119

Post by johnrob »

wvenable wrote: post #85
axod wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll get there... You can already have access to the multi-touch stuff via javascript. idk, I've never thought the appstore was anything but a stop gap personally, and developing for it a crazy risk.

It won't get there before the iPhone is obsolete. You really think that web apps are ever going to get access the microphone or the camera? Also, a stop gap? I think there's an app for that.

"Mobile" is what will become obsolete. These new devices are handheld computers pretending to be phones. Someday they will embrace this reality, and inherit all of the progress that's already played out on PCs/laptops - browsers, flash, etc.
Post reply on HN