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

341–350 of 495 posts

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

#341

Post by fauigerzigerk »

edster wrote: post #191
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…

It's not just with the consoles. I used to develop Lotus Notes applications. The problem with Notes was that the barrier to entry for developers was too low such that it hurt the platform, and it made it hard to distinguish good developers and good apps from the chaff. When a bunch of unqualified developers fill the world with junk it gives the entire platform a reputation as being junky. I now develop iPhone applica…

Your lock-in argument is wrong. Of course there are always dependencies. But it's important to be able to choose which dependencies are the right ones for your application. Mandating a particular API isn't just lock-in. It's lock-in lock-in. You're signing away the right to choose the right tool for the job.

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

#342

Post by fauigerzigerk »

ghshephard wrote: post #165
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…

Adobe's response, from a game-theoretic perspective, is to adhere to 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…

Unfortunately rewriting a cross compiler takes more time than rewriting a sentence in a license agreement.

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

#343

Post by blub »

api wrote: post #15
icey wrote: post #8

I don't really have a politically correct way to say this: What a horseshit maneuver by Apple.

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.)

You do realize that your decision is purely based on feeling and irrational? NEVER make decisions when you are emotional unless it's a life and death matter and you must act immediately.

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

#345

Post by blub »

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…

This is human nature, it's not related to source openness. Open source would just allow you to start over after you have been treated badly if you have the needed development skills (hello Mr. Drepper).

It's also worth noting that the users aren't getting screwed at all by Apple, only the developers and only a small fraction of them.

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

#346

Post by mkramlich »

tzs wrote: post #137
mortenjorck wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"If the cross-platform experience is subpar, Apple should just let these apps fail in the market" Perhaps, like Nintendo, they learned the lessons from the collapse of the home video game market in 1983. When Nintendo was contemplating developing the NES, they took a deep look at what had caused the collapse. What they concluded was that the main cause of death was the market being flooded with too many crappy games.…

Great post, but I'll disagree on one point.

(First my credentials: I was an avid player of Atari 2600 games at the time, so I remember the period in question first-hand.)

My take is not that there was a decline in quality due to any sort of technical reason, it was due to a drop in the quality of the gameplay design and playtesting. That, in turn, I'm guessing was due to the number of Atari 2600 game creators increasing past the threshold of GOOD game designers & playtesters available. After all, it was a relatively new field at the time, video game design. Perhaps it reached a point where there were say 50 new games being "designed" concurrently but there were only 20-30 good designers. Whereas before, it was under that threshold.

This was my theory because I've heard your position stated a few times in the web, but from direct experience I remember it being more a drop in the quality of game play rather than in code quality or technical polish.

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

#348

Post by sunchild »

Apple has pursued a single consistent goal under the reign of King Jobs II: protect the ecosystem, and grow it in careful, measured increments.

In order to keep something great from turning to crap, you have to have a gatekeeper. If you don't trust the gatekeeper, that's OK. But I'm hearing a lot of noise from developers who are already beholden to their own gatekeepers (whether it's the core team of your open source project, Microsoft, Oracle/Sun, or whoever). I mean, Adobe?! Could there be a more arbitrary and horrible gatekeeper than Adobe?!

Just because Apple doesn't do what you want doesn't make them better or worse than any maintainer of any "good thing". In the end, it all boils down to whether you trust Apple to do the right thing.

If you don't, then you're welcome to go punt on the umpteen device platforms that are currently vapor. (How many years have we been hearing about "iPod killers", and where are we with that?)

It's OK to complain, but I really would have thought the HN audience would understand that EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE is a trade-off. Yes, we should be debating the rules that Apple imposes, because we have a say in that. No, that doesn't validate rhetoric about Apple being "evil" or "anti-developer" etc.

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

#349

Post by bobwaycott »

gromitski wrote: post #279
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…

I'm sorry but that is a terrible excuse for what they've done. As a flash developer hit hard by the recession, having another (strong) string in my bow was essential for survival. Like others in my industry, I don't have time to completely re-train every time a new product comes onto the market. Being able to produce for a different device using my current skills is a blessing. Apple should be thoroughly ashamed with…

While it sucks when times are tough, if you want to develop for a new platform to make money, then make and take tge time necessary to learn the platform and its tools.

Your complaint here is disingenuous. When you learned to be a Flash developer, did you complain that Macromedia should be ashamed cos they didn't build their tool in HTML & CSS?

If you want to develop for the iPhone, then develop for the iPhone.

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

#350

Post by JoachimSchipper »

jrockway wrote: post #96

Who's going to know? My C happens to look exactly like what Chicken Scheme generates!

If Chicken Scheme's output is anything like Gambit-C's, that won't fly: it's a dump of internal data structures into syntactically valid C, not something that a human would write or even understand.
Post reply on HN