61–70 of 152 posts
"...Personally I will not be giving Apple another cent of my money until there is a leadership change over there." Uhhh What? The Apple Board? Fire Steve Jobs? Yeah, good luck with that buddy.
Yeah, the Apple board would never push out Steve Jobs. Well, not again.
So, there are a couple things here that jump to my mind. 1. Adobe isn't completely innocent. They're pretty close to a monopoly on their type of software and charge dearly for it (their Creative Suite costs as much as a MacBook Pro). They've done a lot to make sure there are no non-Adobe Flash players even when that's just hurting customers and not costing them money since they don't sell the player. They're not exac…
It's also in Apple's interest to get people using Objective-C and their toolkit. It brings developers to the Mac by forcing them to buy one. I'm not convinced Apple is trying to force developers to buy Macs, and I'm far from convinced that such a strategy would actually work.
Indie Mac developers think a little differently than any other, and it's a direct result of the influence from Apple's UX aesthetic. There is immense respect for the conventions that have been established, and any feature that breaks away from them better have a damn good reason. I just can't see a developer that chooses Windows XP as their main operating system completely understanding the platform and putting the same amount of care into their work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adobe doesn't restrict the creation of swf players or swf creation tools. Gnash,Swfdec are free open source alternatives to Adobe Flash Player.
There is some debate about whether the Adobe/Macromedia Flash EULA can be considered binding, but Gnash developers prefer to avoid the issue by not installing Adobe/Macromedia tools, and thereby not accepting the EULA. We can use tools like Ming to generate Flash testcases, and we rely on the efforts of volunteers to run our testcases on commercial software and report the result. http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/25#eu…
See http://www.openscreenproject.org/about/faq.html to see how much Adobe has opened up since.
Also, it is worth noting that Adobe has never gone after these open source swf player projects.While i agree that Adobe is not as open as it should be, i dont see any reason not to appreciate a good gesture from a powerful company.
I hate such broad-sweeping statements.
What is clear is that Apple most definitely would [abuse their loyal users and make them pawns for the sake of trying to hurt another company].
Apple has always been about the experience of using their products, and I think a lot of what they're doing with their mobile devices still stems from that focus. Maybe they're being too heavy handed, but, then again, they're not allowing grandma's phone to be overrun with software that affects the perception of the device itself.
Comments disabled as I’m not interested in hearing from the Cupertino Comment SPAM bots.
I also find this highly patronizing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adobe doesn't restrict the creation of swf players or swf creation tools. Gnash,Swfdec are free open source alternatives to Adobe Flash Player.
There is some debate about whether the Adobe/Macromedia Flash EULA can be considered binding, but Gnash developers prefer to avoid the issue by not installing Adobe/Macromedia tools, and thereby not accepting the EULA. We can use tools like Ming to generate Flash testcases, and we rely on the efforts of volunteers to run our testcases on commercial software and report the result. http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/25#eu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also in Apple's interest to get people using Objective-C and their toolkit. It brings developers to the Mac by forcing them to buy one. I'm not convinced Apple is trying to force developers to buy Macs, and I'm far from convinced that such a strategy would actually work.
While I agree that Apple isn't forcing developers onto the Mac from a financial perspective, I think it's in their best interest to promote it from a holistic one. Indie Mac developers think a little differently than any other, and it's a direct result of the influence from Apple's UX aesthetic. There is immense respect for the conventions that have been established, and any feature that breaks away from them better…
The funny thing is, Apple has been promoting their platform to developers for years by making it a Unix that just works. And now they're un-promoting it by having a bunch of developer-hostile policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The professional thing is to have your lawyers slip changes into a legal agreement and to make no public statement on it. Which is worse?
False dichotomy.
Any real developer would not in good conscience be able to support this. I hate such broad-sweeping statements. What is clear is that Apple most definitely would [abuse their loyal users and make them pawns for the sake of trying to hurt another company]. Apple has always been about the experience of using their products, and I think a lot of what they're doing with their mobile devices still stems from that focus. M…
That may be fine if you're 'just producing devices,' but Apple presents the iPhone and the iPad as the 'future of computing' with a vision of all computing being done on devices like this in the future. Therefore the way they treat their devices' ecosystem now should be a predictor of how they see their role in the ecosystem in the future, a future where their devices are the only devices.
I'm sorry, but I really don't give a damn. There's a lot of speculation here (and elsewhere), and until I hear anything official from Apple I refuse to get too wound up.
We have something official, more official than any press release: the developer contract. No matter what Apple says in the next few days, nothing short of removing the new clause can prevent Apple from enforcing it at will.
We have Gruber's interpretation of a complex legal document, taken completely out of the context in which "Application" is defined. Lawyers don't get paid big bucks to interpret this stuff for nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The professional thing is to have your lawyers slip changes into a legal agreement and to make no public statement on it. Which is worse?
False dichotomy.