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

Save My House From Apple

savemyhousefromapple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: Save My House From Apple

#111

Post by jiggy2011 »

danssig wrote: post #107
jiggy2011 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adobe's big cash cow is Photoshop. Photoshop users are traditionally Mac loyalists, I doubt many of them would have given any MS offering the time of day.

Photoshop users use Mac because it works the best for what they're doing. If they could have had the same solution vastly cheaper and 80-90% as good you think they'd have been willing to pay thousands more for that 10-20%?

I think they already do that, don't see many professional graphics people using GIMP and others.

Re: Save My House From Apple

#112

Post by madjo »

socialist_coder wrote: post #83
ojilles wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That looks like the same guy?

This seems shady to me. I have apps on the iOS store as well (just like many of you) so I am aware of the emails you get from Apple telling you that your Apple developer account is going to expire. I have never heard of another developer having a problem with renewing their credentials. If there was an actual bug, I don't doubt more developers would be affected. Honestly, I bet he forgot to renew, his apps got pulled…

He renewed in time, it was Apple that made the mistake.

"Three days later I was able to get a response from Apple that verified this was, indeed, a problem with their internal software and that there was nothing I could do about it." Quoth the article.

Re: Save My House From Apple

#114

Post by RyanMcGreal »

rickmb wrote: post #45
robomartin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't just an Apple problem. There's a disturbing trend here. All of the dominant internet companies exhibit this kind of nonsensical "evil" behavior: Google, eBay, Apple and Paypal, to name the most salient examples. Way back when, Microsoft was openly painted by Apple (and the Apple cult followers) as being evil. Interestingly enough, Microsoft never sought to have this kind of a death grip on its users, at le…

The repeated comparison with Microsoft's "former" evil lacks perspective. Microsoft aimed higher and sought to pretty much own the entire ecosystem and everything in it . You don't need to kill of someone's revenue stream if you've taken said someone out of the equation entirely. The painful difference is, where Microsoft actively aimed for the big game, leaving most smaller businesses to do as they please as long as…

> Microsoft aimed higher and sought to pretty much own the entire ecosystem and everything in it.

They've wanted to own the ecosystem but not everything in it. In fact, there was a significant strategic tension between wanting to control the tools developers use to build apps and wanting to leave the app development space as open and accessible as possible.

You don't need a developer licence to write an app to run on Windows. Likewise, you don't need permission from Microsoft to sell that app to Windows users. You don't even need to be running Windows on your development machine. Those are three significant, meaningful ways that Microsoft's approach, even at its most hegemonic, has always been more open, accessible and inclusive than Apple's.

Re: Save My House From Apple

#115

Post by Someone »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #114
rickmb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The repeated comparison with Microsoft's "former" evil lacks perspective. Microsoft aimed higher and sought to pretty much own the entire ecosystem and everything in it . You don't need to kill of someone's revenue stream if you've taken said someone out of the equation entirely. The painful difference is, where Microsoft actively aimed for the big game, leaving most smaller businesses to do as they please as long as…

> Microsoft aimed higher and sought to pretty much own the entire ecosystem and everything in it. They've wanted to own the ecosystem but not everything in it. In fact, there was a significant strategic tension between wanting to control the tools developers use to build apps and wanting to leave the app development space as open and accessible as possible. You don't need a developer licence to write an app to run on…

You do not need anything from Apple to write or sell apps for the Mac, either, and I do not think you ever needed that (early Macintosh, say before the phonebook edition of Inside Macintosh, may have been an exception, as the information you needed simply was not out there. You also would have needed a Mac to write the floppy disks that most software got distributed on (there was some distribution over the Internet using Kermit))

It is true that it is way easier to write programs using Apple's (free, at the moment) tools, and it sure helps to have access to a Mac, if alone for testing, but you do not _need_ either. In that, it is not that much different from Windows. You can write Windows (Win32 or .NET) tools on Unix, but I would not advise going that way.

Re: Save My House From Apple

#116

Post by RyanMcGreal »

Someone wrote: post #115
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft aimed higher and sought to pretty much own the entire ecosystem and everything in it. They've wanted to own the ecosystem but not everything in it. In fact, there was a significant strategic tension between wanting to control the tools developers use to build apps and wanting to leave the app development space as open and accessible as possible. You don't need a developer licence to write an app to run on…

You do not need anything from Apple to write or sell apps for the Mac, either, and I do not think you ever needed that (early Macintosh, say before the phonebook edition of Inside Macintosh, may have been an exception, as the information you needed simply was not out there. You also would have needed a Mac to write the floppy disks that most software got distributed on (there was some distribution over the Internet u…

> You do not need anything from Apple to write or sell apps for the Mac,

For now that remains true on OSX, but it's not true for iOS, which is what TFA is about, and as OSX imports more ideas from iOS I'm not entirely comfortable it will remain true.

Re: Save My House From Apple

#118

Post by efsavage »

JackC wrote: post #110
gaius wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People forget, because it's seen as "hip" to hate on it now, but when IE6 was released, it really was a better browser than the competition. What killed Netscape was that version 3.0 of their server products were terrible. At the time I was working for a company that had spent millions on version 2. It was easier to jump platforms than to try to get 3 stable for us...

Dude, people don't hate IE6 because it's hip, we hate it because it has wasted hours and hours and hours of time for each and every one of us who design for the web, and the websites you use are worse as a result. Maybe IE6 was better than the competition in 2001, but it was also terribly buggy and non-standards-compliant, encouraged developers to include Windows-only components that made it impossible for users to c…

Yes, but from when IE4 came out (1997) until late 2004 when Firefox came out, IE was the undisputed best browser (yes I'm ignoring Opera as we always have). That was 7 very long years of getting people to upgrade to IE from NN4.

Re: Save My House From Apple

#119

Post by dkulchenko »

steve-howard wrote: post #81
pgeorgi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, with android market, once your app has a reputation, you have a fair chance to distribute by yourself, as few devices lock down the side-loading capability.

Except on AT&T.

That hasn't been the case for months, AT&T has been allowing sideloading for a while now.

Re: Save My House From Apple

#120

Post by danssig »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #111
danssig wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Photoshop users use Mac because it works the best for what they're doing. If they could have had the same solution vastly cheaper and 80-90% as good you think they'd have been willing to pay thousands more for that 10-20%?

I think they already do that, don't see many professional graphics people using GIMP and others.

Photoshop gives you much more than 20% over GIMP. Photoshop is light years ahead of anything else out there and only getting more so (see latest sneak of deblurring photos).
Post reply on HN