451–460 of 495 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the cross-platform experience is subpar, Apple should just let these apps fail in the market.
Apple is letting them fail in the market. On their competitors' devices. Don't worry, if you savor the cross-platform software experience there will be plenty of options for you. At bargain prices, in fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Howso? They've spent the money and the time to create a great platform. It seems well within their rights to dictate a lot of the rules around what goes on the platform they created. And as mentioned above, they dont have a monopoly in the market so, from Apple's perspective, 'if you don't like it, there are other opportunities' ... developing for the bberry :)
Oh, I never questioned their right to do so. My comment was meant literally: They look silly to me.
It's the same strategy that they've always used with their software/hardware combination, which has worked beautifully in the case of the mac.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But aren't there really three markets here? First, we have the hardware, and as you say, Apple is certainly in a competitive market with its iPhone offering. Then, for each type of hardware, we have the software that runs on it. Anyone could write software to run on Apple's hardware, but because Apple lock down the phone and run the only app store in town, they have a de facto monopoly on the supply of software to iP…
In all likelihood, Apple would argue—successfully—that the market should not be defined as the "iPhone software" market but as the "smartphone software" market, at which point they no longer have a monopoly and are no longer subject to anti-trust scrutiny. What gets interesting is when/if Apple's dominance continues to grow to the point that the "iPhone software" market is effectively the "smartphone software" market…
"Apple responsible for 99.4% of mobile app sales in 2009"
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-...
... it doesn't take a Phd to acknowledge that the AppStore IS the mobile SW market - thus - i would rather disagree that Apple argument SHOULD be successful in case somebody (or some agency) should bring a legal challenge to the new draconian policies - which are obviously abusing Apple dominance ...
the question for me is more technical = who can bring such a legal challenge? can developers do that? can users do that? or only a govt. agency can ... in which case - considering the influence and connections Apple has with Washington - that might not happen ...
would it be possible for developers to team up in class-action suit based which could then trigger a govt. investigation?
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…
> developers who are already beholden to their own gatekeepers (whether it's the core team of your open source project I couldn't disagree more. The goal of free software is to ensure nobody has that kind of control over you and your tools. If you don't need to organize a fork, great, but they've already agreed they can't stop you. As for the rhetoric, making tools is what makes you a member of our species. Agreeing…
And forking is obviously less-than-ideal in terms of maintaining against future core updates. It's a kind of "freedom" that comes with plenty of new burdens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all likelihood, Apple would argue—successfully—that the market should not be defined as the "iPhone software" market but as the "smartphone software" market, at which point they no longer have a monopoly and are no longer subject to anti-trust scrutiny. What gets interesting is when/if Apple's dominance continues to grow to the point that the "iPhone software" market is effectively the "smartphone software" market…
>> In all likelihood, Apple would argue—successfully—that the market should not be defined as the "iPhone software" market but as the "smartphone software" market, at which point they no longer have a monopoly and are no longer subject to anti-trust scrutiny. "Apple responsible for 99.4% of mobile app sales in 2009" http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/apple-responsible-... ... it doesn't take a Phd to acknowled…
Presumably Adobe are the most likely candidates who also have serious legal firepower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Emacs Lisp is a mess. It doesn't even have lexical scoping.
The development version does. I can tell you, though, that this doesn't really matter in real life. The compiler warns you when you use a free variable, so it's pretty hard to accidentally misuse a dynamic variable. There are pathological cases that people point out, but these rarely matter in elisp that most people actually write. Programming Emacs is a little different from programming other systems, but once you u…
I agree that emacs lisp can still be used to productively write software. People put up with much worse things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
true, but I don't want to support a company that does not respect privacy and collects data without any control - I also don't have the time to inspect their code
So what's your solution, "do nothing"? Typical lisp programmer...
Sorry, that I don't care about running Clojure and/or Android.
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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I never questioned their right to do so. My comment was meant literally: They look silly to me.
It doesn't look silly when taken in context with the rest of their strategy of controlling the entire toolchain to maintain consistency across apps. That strategy becomes harder when everyone goes off and uses different tools. It's the same strategy that they've always used with their software/hardware combination, which has worked beautifully in the case of the mac.