61–70 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished. But XCode is free with every copy of OSX. If the same were true for Visual Studio Ultimate, I don't think it would be an issue.
OS X isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know something is substandard just because it's made with some other library / language ? Especially with an "yet to be created" library / language ? If you think "the market will figure this out" (which I think in itself is wrong) why don't we let the market figure out which language is better ? If the users don't like some products, they won't buy them. If all Cocoa touch apps make money and all the Flas…
I think there's certainly a certain bar of quality apple has in terms of the human interface guidelines / look+feel of the app. The fart apps might be crap, but they still look like iPhone apps. I have no desire and i can understand apple's desire to not want apps that have that shitty flash/flex look on the iphone. Now... if the apps look the same, I don't think this matters. Is it a valid theory to say: this is les…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? >For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code) XNA requires you to target the .NET runtime. It does not dictate what t…
The distinction Apple is making is thus: A "bad" behavior written into an app by hand may break on a new update, but it affects only itself. A "bad" behavior written into middleware may break on a new update, and may take out dozens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of apps. No-one would expect Apple to take special pains to avoid breaking a handful of random apps in the app store. But if some middleware bug effected th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? >For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code) XNA requires you to target the .NET runtime. It does not dictate what t…
> If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished. But XCode is free with every copy of OSX. If the same were true for Visual Studio Ultimate, I don't think it would be an issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? >For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code) XNA requires you to target the .NET runtime. It does not dictate what t…
The distinction Apple is making is thus: A "bad" behavior written into an app by hand may break on a new update, but it affects only itself. A "bad" behavior written into middleware may break on a new update, and may take out dozens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of apps. No-one would expect Apple to take special pains to avoid breaking a handful of random apps in the app store. But if some middleware bug effected th…
Should Apple outlaw 3rd-party Objective C libraries as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished. But XCode is free with every copy of OSX. If the same were true for Visual Studio Ultimate, I don't think it would be an issue.
[Ignoring the context of this discussion] The fact that something is free doesn't automatically make it non-issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong metric. You may as well choose "Shiny plastic devices market" as "smartphone market," because neither directly affects third-party devs. What matters here is app market, and Apple is utterly dominant there.
So Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone app store - no great surprise there. I may as well claim that Microsoft need to open the 360 marketplace to my personal ideals, because they have a monopoly on licensing XBox 360 games. The Android app store certainly exists, and is doing quite well. The web is free for all platforms. Apple don't, by any realistic measure, have a monopoly on application sales for smartphones. The…
So I don't think we can say "they just couldn't" — in fact, they just did.
And I might be skeptical about the numbers (Gartner isn't infallible), but every story I've heard from cross-platform mobile dev houses agrees with this — you'll get almost 100 times the sales on iPhone that you will on other platforms. I've never heard a contradictory story either, not even from Google trying to puff itself up. That's pretty much a monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"They're making choices based on what they think is best for their platform, and letting the market chose." The former is absolutely true. The latter is absolutely not. Hence why the government is looking into it. Apple's actions are completely inexcusable and borderline illegal. It is only by incredible bravado and arrogance that they could have ever thought that 3.3.1 would be acceptable. They could have accomplish…
How are Apple preventing you from buying the ever more popular Android phones? Or Web OS phones? You, a member of the market, buy the phone with the features you want. If you don't like Apple products, or the app store they provide, buy one of the many hundreds of alternative smartphones, many of which have large adoption.
They aren't and I have. Right now, however, the biggest momentum that the iP(hone|ad) has is the app market, and the fact that a lot of large organizations have special support for its walled garden. 3.3.1 is Apple's way of trying to ensure that it is a specially cultivated walled garden, and that it's more likely that "there's an app for that" only applies to the Apple devices.
I think it's a futile move that is too late, but that is the clearly obvious motive behind 3.3.1. It is anti-competitive and without justification, and honestly it's a bit bizarre that so many fail to grasp that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The distinction Apple is making is thus: A "bad" behavior written into an app by hand may break on a new update, but it affects only itself. A "bad" behavior written into middleware may break on a new update, and may take out dozens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of apps. No-one would expect Apple to take special pains to avoid breaking a handful of random apps in the app store. But if some middleware bug effected th…
This justification is one of the most astonishingly vapid ones around. I'm not quite sure how it keeps getting repeated as if it has credence, when technically it has no legs to stand on. The distinction Apple is making is that they have a temporary mindspace monopoly of the smartphone markets and they want to cement it in by forcing developers to help the Apple cause.
As Jobs has explained, they've been burned before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The distinction Apple is making is thus: A "bad" behavior written into an app by hand may break on a new update, but it affects only itself. A "bad" behavior written into middleware may break on a new update, and may take out dozens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of apps. No-one would expect Apple to take special pains to avoid breaking a handful of random apps in the app store. But if some middleware bug effected th…
The problem I see is that Apple feels poor apps (whatever that means) reflect poorly on it rather than just on the app makers themselves. This is new. On OS X a crappy app is just a crappy app. Nobody blames Apple, people blame the application developer. There has to be some argument made that on a small mobile device this distinction is warranted, but I haven't heard it yet.