Apple's focus is and always will be: 1) Apple, 2) Marketers, 3) Users, 4) Developers, and #4 has always been a distant one at best (anyone remember the Rhapsody fiasco?) Keep that ordering in mind, the latest changes make perfect sense.
Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
21–30 of 93 posts
Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
#22isn't that the guy who likes to say "f*ck you" to the developers who use the OSS framework he created and still manages?
In case you are serious, that quote is out of context.
He said "fuck you" in a presentation on Rails where he tried expressing that Rails is opinionated and that if Rails doesn't suit your style you're better off choosing something else instead of trying to convince core devs to switch directions (or something of the sort).
Say what you will about the guy, but he's a great salesman.
Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
#23The problem is Apple has no real competition. They can do almost anything they want without fear of retribution because your average consumer has no idea what any of this means. That's bad news for all us pissed off developers since Apple's new platform will continue to be extremely popular in which case devs are forced to develop for it. Google seems to be inching towards being a real threat but they also seem extre…
You're taking Apple's domination for granted. How did they get it? There were half a dozen smartphone platforms before iPhone OS, but all of the devices had lousy quality, lousy user experience, and a lousy marketplace for third-party apps. If you read the rebuttals to the complaints, you'll see that there are several practical, quality-oriented reasons why 3.3.1 was a smart move. It's just one of hundreds of quality…
I don't know why you're talking in the past test ... like those platforms are dead or something.
Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
#24isn't that the guy who likes to say "f*ck you" to the developers who use the OSS framework he created and still manages?
In case you are serious, that quote is out of context. He said "fuck you" in a presentation on Rails where he tried expressing that Rails is opinionated and that if Rails doesn't suit your style you're better off choosing something else instead of trying to convince core devs to switch directions (or something of the sort). Say what you will about the guy, but he's a great salesman.
So Apple is also an "opinionated" vendor, so what? Not happy? Try developing for Android or something else. Really, what are the merits for this guy to complain about it given his own stand regarding Rails?
Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
#25The web is not a carefully curated gallery of web pages and yet we're still able to find the good stuff all the time thanks to intermediaries of discovery This is hardly a strong argument, as the main "intermediary of discovery" is Google, and most internet users are all too ready to give up their banking information to websites which have an official looking header on the page. Just because it worked for the web doe…
So you'd like for the web to be put back in the box and replaced with an AOL Walled Garden of wonder? Freedom can indeed be dangerous, but I'd rather be free to hurt myself than smothered to dead by paternalism.
The post you're replying to specifically said that it "worked for the web". Nobody's trying to take away the open web.
Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
#26The problem is Apple has no real competition. They can do almost anything they want without fear of retribution because your average consumer has no idea what any of this means. That's bad news for all us pissed off developers since Apple's new platform will continue to be extremely popular in which case devs are forced to develop for it. Google seems to be inching towards being a real threat but they also seem extre…
In my city Vodafone has said it's going to start shipping Droid and Nexus One. They are already shipping some Android-enabled LG model.
And they have a big marketing machine ready ... its competitor (Orange) has been shipping iPhones for a while, but I haven't seen many around (mostly because people haven't jumped on the smartphones wagon).
And I think it's the same situation in the rest of Europe. It's the carriers that make it happen ... and Vodafone is a huge player.
Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
#27I hope #5 turns out to be bigger than I think it will be, but people end up sticking with what is popular (iPhone) even when it hurts to do so.
I been saying this ever since I first got wind of the new TOS. We went away from Windows because MS was holing a leash on us with their API lock-in. Now we're 1-up ing that with Apple's new TOS which takes the MS lock-in to a whole new level. People say "oh but it will keep the already crap x-platform apps out" to which I say "Yes it will keep the would-be flashy x-platform POS games/crap apps out, but it will also k…
This is exactly the thinking that Apple doesn't want going into App Store apps: "I'll just put up this good-enough piece of crap because that's all I have time/money to do." They've got a ton of businesses wanting to be on iPhone so they're willing to lose those businesses that will only put out crap. I agree with you that putting out a piece of crap might make the most sense for your business. But it's not what Apple wants for its platform.
A key thing to understand here: the existence of a platform controlled in this way increases diversity, since there are several other prospering platforms that do things differently.
Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
#28I hope #5 turns out to be bigger than I think it will be, but people end up sticking with what is popular (iPhone) even when it hurts to do so.
I been saying this ever since I first got wind of the new TOS. We went away from Windows because MS was holing a leash on us with their API lock-in. Now we're 1-up ing that with Apple's new TOS which takes the MS lock-in to a whole new level. People say "oh but it will keep the already crap x-platform apps out" to which I say "Yes it will keep the would-be flashy x-platform POS games/crap apps out, but it will also k…
> Apple's new TOS which takes the MS lock-in to a whole new level.
Since the days of the Mac, Apple has always been about maximizing control. MS won because the 'settled' for the OS, whereas Apple wanted to control both the OS and the hardware. We probably wouldn't have things like Linux and FreeBSD easily available if that sort of locked-down environment had prevailed.
Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
In case you are serious, that quote is out of context. He said "fuck you" in a presentation on Rails where he tried expressing that Rails is opinionated and that if Rails doesn't suit your style you're better off choosing something else instead of trying to convince core devs to switch directions (or something of the sort). Say what you will about the guy, but he's a great salesman.
So Apple is also an "opinionated" vendor, so what? Not happy? Try developing for Android or something else. Really, what are the merits for this guy to complain about it given his own stand regarding Rails?
You're comparing apples vs oranges ... Rails is an open-source web-framework. If you don't like its directions and you'd like to change that, you can always fork it without gettings sued ... and forks/clones in other languages have happened and are thriving.
His merits are that he's a contributor to an open-source piece of software that changed people's perceptions and he's also a founder of 37signals, a small business that's quite profitable (which is a lot more than I can say for myself).
Re: Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy
#30Giles "Goatboy" Bowkett: I even say (sic) DHH enter the fray, which is absurd hypocrisy, given that the first time I ever saw this guy, he was putting a giant "Fuck You" slide on a screen and explaining how he wasn't going to add features to Rails that he didn't agree with, because it was his framework, and he didn't believe that anybody who disagreed with him on that merited any other response but "fuck you". What k…
git clone rails
So if I understand your witty reply, what you're saying is that if you give your work product away, you are entitled to do as you please with the fruits of your labour.
However, if you develop a proprietary product, you are not entitled to do as you please with it and must accommodate the needs of those who want to do something else with it and are unable to do so because of your licensing terms.
Is that what "git clone rails" amounts to suggesting?