41–50 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you're talking in the past test ... like those platforms are dead or something.
They still exist, but the situation is no longer the same as it was when the iPhone was announced. I believe that RiM and Symbian have improved since then.
#1 is a bizarre argument. I can't weed my garden unless it is already free of weeds?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 busine…
It's a free market... anyone can create their own platform from scratch. Even you and me. But it's hard, right? Anyway, it's not as if Apple had a special license to address this market. By the way, IP is far from being the only cost involved in building an ecosystem around a platform (as ESR has explained ad nauseum). So the "Rails is OSS" argument doesn't really apply here.
Apple surely acts like it's having a special license to address this market (whatever that means).
So I don't know why we are having this conversation. Being opinionated doesn't mean you need to be a jerk that prevents others from playing on the same beach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone really, seriously argued that Apple isn't "entitled" to do as they please? They are, and developers are entitled to be annoyed when their seemingly artificial and arbitrary limitations cause them problems. And we're all entitled to post our opinions about it, but you should maybe try and give the opposing views a little more respect. :)
Well yes, I have read opinions that Apple is abusing some sort of market dominance and/or reneging on expectations it has set by changing its SDK terms. But let's stick with opinions that Apple is either (a) disadvantaging itself, or (b) disadvantaging developers with its current set of choices. I didn't realize that quoting Giles was considered disrespectful of either of these opinions. It was an interesting take. I…
Your clarification makes sense, but it's not the message I got the first time. I do think putting a relatively arbitrary restriction in place is vastly different from just refusing to do something a specific way, though. One is actively restricting a personal preference, the other is simply not bowing to an idea/method you disagree with. :)
#1 is a bizarre argument. I can't weed my garden unless it is already free of weeds?
#1 is a bizarre argument. I can't weed my garden unless it is already free of weeds?
Clearly, though, the fact that the app store is already flooded with low-quality applications is indicative of the fact that Apple hasn't been doing that, which makes that justification seem totally bogus: if they really cared about low-quality applications, they could have done something about it long ago without restricting cross-compilation techniques. And if they wanted to put a stop to it now, they could still do it without restricting cross-compilation.
So to extend your analogy: if you want to weed the garden, then pull the weeds already. No need to have this strange level of indirection that will result in removing only a small number of the weeds while also eliminating plenty of flowers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a free market... anyone can create their own platform from scratch. Even you and me. But it's hard, right? Anyway, it's not as if Apple had a special license to address this market. By the way, IP is far from being the only cost involved in building an ecosystem around a platform (as ESR has explained ad nauseum). So the "Rails is OSS" argument doesn't really apply here.
Isn't there a recent lawsuit involving Apple accusing HTC of infringing 20 patents, even though HTC is not the stereotypical Chinese cloning machine? Isn't Steve Jobs expressing his frustrations with Android every chance he gets, even though there's lots of prior art in the mobile OS space? Apple surely acts like it's having a special license to address this market (whatever that means). So I don't know why we are ha…
Some innovations, when developed via a proprietary approach bring huge costs and risks (and couldn't be done otherwise) and patents exist to protect the innovators from free loaders.
Now, that's how it should work in principle. If Apple is trying to game that model, it is not up to me to decide. There are courts for that.
And, as I said before, IP is far from being the only important cost when creating a new platform.
"Ruby on Rails" is copyrighted to its creator. So what? Why is it so? Isn't that an "asset" within the economics of OSS? It is, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it being copyrighted.
Anyway, my point is that none of this justifies the fact that the Rails guy is simply being utterly hypocrite, period.
The 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well yes, I have read opinions that Apple is abusing some sort of market dominance and/or reneging on expectations it has set by changing its SDK terms. But let's stick with opinions that Apple is either (a) disadvantaging itself, or (b) disadvantaging developers with its current set of choices. I didn't realize that quoting Giles was considered disrespectful of either of these opinions. It was an interesting take. I…
Oh, I was responding more to the second post, not the quote so much. Chalking that DHH post up to "Apple isn't entitled" seemed a little flippant to me, but perhaps I was misreading you. Your clarification makes sense, but it's not the message I got the first time. I do think putting a relatively arbitrary restriction in place is vastly different from just refusing to do something a specific way, though. One is activ…
Ahh, just as we favour "Convention over Configuration," we also believe in the power of "Discussion over Dismissiveness." This exchange of view is great, thanks.
:-)