iphone implications...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

iphone implications...

jlm@justinfront.net
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not  
sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in the  
european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some law  
in that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and programmers  
can use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about  
developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone  
platform.


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

jlm@justinfront.net
oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

> http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
>
> I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not  
> sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in  
> the european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking  
> some law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and  
> programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder  
> about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in  
> iphone platform.
>
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Lee Sylvester
I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal to
allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just not cricket!

If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...

Lee






Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

> oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.
>
> On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>
>> http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
>>
>> I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not
>> sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in
>> the european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some
>> law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and
>> programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder
>> about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone
>> platform.
>>
>>
>> --
>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>> http://haxe.org
>
>


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

jlm@justinfront.net
Lee

Re: Nexus

I rarely get good internet connection on mine, although its excellent  
at viewing pages over wifi... maybe it's three's fault, but my nokia  
was better.   And I feel the import charge was a bit sneaky as it was  
not clearly stated, and the empty box issue and lack of phone support  
line have made me very wary of buying from google.  I may need to  
switch phone providers or phone as I don't find Nexus reception with  
three adequate, but maybe I should wait till vodaphone are selling a  
Nexus so that when switch I get good technical support.

So I must admit the whole smart phone thing seems to be nightmare, I  
think less smart phones are better at basic phone tech as I read  
iphone is not brilliant either!

;j

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:19, Lee McColl Sylvester wrote:

> I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal  
> to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just  
> not cricket!
>
> If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>> oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.
>>
>> On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>
>>> http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
>>>
>>> I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am  
>>> not sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge  
>>> Apple in the european courts as this to me feels like it must be  
>>> breaking some law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what  
>>> users and programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.    
>>> Make's me wonder about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack  
>>> of interest in iphone platform.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>>> http://haxe.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

jlm@justinfront.net
In reply to this post by Lee Sylvester
Lee

I would suspect that if you took you iphone back for a refund due to  
this new license then Adobe may well be interested in legally  
supporting your claim and other developers who purchased iphones under  
different assumptions.  I really do feel that Apple have stepped too  
far with this license.  I am sure Hugh especially would have a very  
good case.

Cheers

;j

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:19, Lee McColl Sylvester wrote:

> I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal  
> to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just  
> not cricket!
>
> If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>> oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.
>>
>> On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>
>>> http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
>>>
>>> I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am  
>>> not sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge  
>>> Apple in the european courts as this to me feels like it must be  
>>> breaking some law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what  
>>> users and programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.    
>>> Make's me wonder about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack  
>>> of interest in iphone platform.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>>> http://haxe.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Baluta Cristian
From the final note i understand that what apple wants is to be sure that only the allowed api is used?

A little off-topic, but the android development tool is horrible, if you switch for that, i'm sorry for you. x-code it simply works, at first i was dissapointed about the speed compared to haxe, but wait to see how long it takes to see the android simulator.

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Justin Lawerance Mills <[hidden email]> wrote:
Lee

I would suspect that if you took you iphone back for a refund due to this new license then Adobe may well be interested in legally supporting your claim and other developers who purchased iphones under different assumptions.  I really do feel that Apple have stepped too far with this license.  I am sure Hugh especially would have a very good case.

Cheers


;j

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:19, Lee McColl Sylvester wrote:

I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just not cricket!

If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...

Lee






Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone platform.


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org




--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
Băluță Cristian
http://ralcr.com
http://imagin.ro

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Benjamin Dasnois
The Android tool is not that slow honestly. It's Eclipse and the
emulator is a true emulator (whereas I think for iPhone it's just a
simulator).

So, Apple seems to be going into that thing again. There's already
been a case in France when a major operator complained because he
couldn't sell the iPhone (and they won).

Anyway, I've just received a mail from Appcelerator that basically
read that those terms are not definitive and will change and that they
are still discussing with Apple to comply by all the rules that will
be in the final document. So, we can hope that this thing will be
thrown away...

Regards,

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Baluta Cristian <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From the final note i understand that what apple wants is to be sure that
> only the allowed api is used?
> A little off-topic, but the android development tool is horrible, if you
> switch for that, i'm sorry for you. x-code it simply works, at first i was
> dissapointed about the speed compared to haxe, but wait to see how long it
> takes to see the android simulator.
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Justin Lawerance Mills <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> I would suspect that if you took you iphone back for a refund due to this
>> new license then Adobe may well be interested in legally supporting your
>> claim and other developers who purchased iphones under different
>> assumptions.  I really do feel that Apple have stepped too far with this
>> license.  I am sure Hugh especially would have a very good case.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> ;j
>>
>> On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:19, Lee McColl Sylvester wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal to
>>> allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just not cricket!
>>>
>>> If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>>>
>>>> oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.
>>>>
>>>> On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not
>>>>> sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in the
>>>>> european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some law in
>>>>> that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and programmers can
>>>>> use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about developing on a
>>>>> Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone platform.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>>>>> http://haxe.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>>> http://haxe.org
>>
>>
>> --
>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>> http://haxe.org
>
>
>
> --
> Băluță Cristian
> http://ralcr.com
> http://imagin.ro
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org
>



--
DASNOIS Benjamin
http://www.benjamindasnois.com

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Juan Delgado
Little OT about the Nexus and connectivity. I have a Hero with
T-Mobile and I get decent mobile internet anywhere I go in the UK,
including the commute in the train.

So it definitely looks like a 3 issue.

J

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Benjamin Dasnois
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> The Android tool is not that slow honestly. It's Eclipse and the
> emulator is a true emulator (whereas I think for iPhone it's just a
> simulator).
>
> So, Apple seems to be going into that thing again. There's already
> been a case in France when a major operator complained because he
> couldn't sell the iPhone (and they won).
>
> Anyway, I've just received a mail from Appcelerator that basically
> read that those terms are not definitive and will change and that they
> are still discussing with Apple to comply by all the rules that will
> be in the final document. So, we can hope that this thing will be
> thrown away...
>
> Regards,
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Baluta Cristian <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> From the final note i understand that what apple wants is to be sure that
>> only the allowed api is used?
>> A little off-topic, but the android development tool is horrible, if you
>> switch for that, i'm sorry for you. x-code it simply works, at first i was
>> dissapointed about the speed compared to haxe, but wait to see how long it
>> takes to see the android simulator.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Justin Lawerance Mills <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>
>>> I would suspect that if you took you iphone back for a refund due to this
>>> new license then Adobe may well be interested in legally supporting your
>>> claim and other developers who purchased iphones under different
>>> assumptions.  I really do feel that Apple have stepped too far with this
>>> license.  I am sure Hugh especially would have a very good case.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> ;j
>>>
>>> On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:19, Lee McColl Sylvester wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal to
>>>> allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just not cricket!
>>>>
>>>> If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...
>>>>
>>>> Lee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not
>>>>>> sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in the
>>>>>> european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some law in
>>>>>> that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and programmers can
>>>>>> use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about developing on a
>>>>>> Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>>>>>> http://haxe.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>>>> http://haxe.org
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>>> http://haxe.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Băluță Cristian
>> http://ralcr.com
>> http://imagin.ro
>>
>> --
>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>> http://haxe.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> DASNOIS Benjamin
> http://www.benjamindasnois.com
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org
>



--
Juan Delgado - Zárate
http://zarate.tv
http://blog.zarate.tv

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Justin Donaldson
In reply to this post by Lee Sylvester
This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax highlighting in your IDE.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in use: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser wars" of the last decade or so.

Best,
-Justin

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just not cricket!

If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...

Lee







Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone platform.


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org




--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
Justin Donaldson
PhD Candidate, Informatics
Indiana University
http://www.scwn.net
aim: iujjd
twitter: jjdonald

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

David Bergman
Not that I approve of what Apple is doing here, far from it, but: Apple does not have monopoly on anything, yet, but if they are lucky, they might get a monopoly on tablets soon, in which case such limitations could be considered illegal use of monopoly. So, perhaps the iPad success will force them to rethink matters.

/David
 
On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Justin Donaldson wrote:

This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax highlighting in your IDE.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in use: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser wars" of the last decade or so.

Best,
-Justin

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just not cricket!

If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...

Lee







Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone platform.


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org




--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
Justin Donaldson
PhD Candidate, Informatics
Indiana University
http://www.scwn.net
aim: iujjd
twitter: jjdonald
--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Alex Liebert
There's a rumor around the unity camp that they've contacted Apple- and the gist of it was you're fine as long as your final compilation happens in XCode from C, C++, or obj-c source.  Presumably that they would target systems that produce binary ipa files without an intermediate step through XCode...


On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM, David Bergman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Not that I approve of what Apple is doing here, far from it, but: Apple does not have monopoly on anything, yet, but if they are lucky, they might get a monopoly on tablets soon, in which case such limitations could be considered illegal use of monopoly. So, perhaps the iPad success will force them to rethink matters.

/David
 
On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Justin Donaldson wrote:

This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax highlighting in your IDE.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in use: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser wars" of the last decade or so.

Best,
-Justin

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just not cricket!

If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...

Lee







Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone platform.


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org




--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
Justin Donaldson
PhD Candidate, Informatics
Indiana University
http://www.scwn.net
aim: iujjd
twitter: jjdonald
--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

David Bergman
On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Alex Liebert wrote:

There's a rumor around the unity camp that they've contacted Apple- and the gist of it was you're fine as long as your final compilation happens in XCode from C, C++, or obj-c source.  Presumably that they would target systems that produce binary ipa files without an intermediate step through XCode...

That would make slightly more sense, but... Apple is using "originally written in" in their wording.

Also a bit sad that they do not allow for Objective-C++ which is what I use (when not haXing around) ;-)

/David



On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM, David Bergman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Not that I approve of what Apple is doing here, far from it, but: Apple does not have monopoly on anything, yet, but if they are lucky, they might get a monopoly on tablets soon, in which case such limitations could be considered illegal use of monopoly. So, perhaps the iPad success will force them to rethink matters.

/David
 
On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Justin Donaldson wrote:

This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax highlighting in your IDE.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in use: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser wars" of the last decade or so.

Best,
-Justin

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just not cricket!

If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...

Lee







Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone platform.


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org




--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
Justin Donaldson
PhD Candidate, Informatics
Indiana University
http://www.scwn.net
aim: iujjd
twitter: jjdonald
--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Alex Liebert
I agree about the wording - but this is apparently what they told the Unity folks. 

Ultimately, the clause is going to be interpreted to exclude systems that created binary iphone applications directly, because that's what Flash CS5 does.  Like hxcpp/iphone, Unity produces a c xcode project and leaves the user to compile it.


On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:57 PM, David Bergman <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Alex Liebert wrote:

There's a rumor around the unity camp that they've contacted Apple- and the gist of it was you're fine as long as your final compilation happens in XCode from C, C++, or obj-c source.  Presumably that they would target systems that produce binary ipa files without an intermediate step through XCode...

That would make slightly more sense, but... Apple is using "originally written in" in their wording.

Also a bit sad that they do not allow for Objective-C++ which is what I use (when not haXing around) ;-)

/David



On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM, David Bergman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Not that I approve of what Apple is doing here, far from it, but: Apple does not have monopoly on anything, yet, but if they are lucky, they might get a monopoly on tablets soon, in which case such limitations could be considered illegal use of monopoly. So, perhaps the iPad success will force them to rethink matters.

/David
 
On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Justin Donaldson wrote:

This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax highlighting in your IDE.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in use: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser wars" of the last decade or so.

Best,
-Justin

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just not cricket!

If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...

Lee







Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone platform.


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org




--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
Justin Donaldson
PhD Candidate, Informatics
Indiana University
http://www.scwn.net
aim: iujjd
twitter: jjdonald
--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Kevin Newman
In reply to this post by David Bergman
Apple will not gain a monopoly on anything. Just like Android has surged in market share in just a couple of months, so will their tablets surge in popularity when they start shipping (and there are a number of compelling products coming out within a few months - from the looks of things). Then there's Microsoft, who's got the Atom based tablet market (Slate) and I'd bet has a Windows Phone 7 Series (or whatever) variant for ARM based tablets in the works.

You can tell Apple is concerned, by the clear indications of the rush job they did to push out the iPad. They won a victory on time to market, but I don't think that's enough to secure a lock on the entire market. They are Apple after all.

It's all pretty exciting really. :-)

Kevin N.



On 4/9/10 9:45 PM, David Bergman wrote:
Not that I approve of what Apple is doing here, far from it, but: Apple does not have monopoly on anything, yet, but if they are lucky, they might get a monopoly on tablets soon, in which case such limitations could be considered illegal use of monopoly. So, perhaps the iPad success will force them to rethink matters.

/David
 
On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Justin Donaldson wrote:

This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax highlighting in your IDE.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in use: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser wars" of the last decade or so.

Best,
-Justin

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just not cricket!

If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...

Lee







Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone platform.


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org




--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
Justin Donaldson
PhD Candidate, Informatics
Indiana University
http://www.scwn.net
aim: iujjd
twitter: jjdonald
--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Justin Donaldson
Monopoly is a bit of an overstatement, but it still has some relative truth for this audience.

iPhones are a small part of the market overall (probably less than ~10%):
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1306513

However, they account for over 50% of mobile web usage:
http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/iphone-now-50-percent-of-smartphone-web-traffic-in-the-us/

If you have an innovative app, and you want access to a non-restricted/non-enterprise user base, iPhones are the best option.

And as far as game apps go (which many here are interested in), they're by far the dominant platform (sorry android):
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/04/app-directory-myplayit-mobile-gaming-lags-on-android/

I've never seen a company take such a standoffish approach with developers.  If Apple's strategy works, and they can stay dominant while dictating such ridiculous Orwellian terms to their developer community with no recourse,  I think it sets a very unsettling precedent.

-Justin

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Kevin Newman <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apple will not gain a monopoly on anything. Just like Android has surged in market share in just a couple of months, so will their tablets surge in popularity when they start shipping (and there are a number of compelling products coming out within a few months - from the looks of things). Then there's Microsoft, who's got the Atom based tablet market (Slate) and I'd bet has a Windows Phone 7 Series (or whatever) variant for ARM based tablets in the works.

You can tell Apple is concerned, by the clear indications of the rush job they did to push out the iPad. They won a victory on time to market, but I don't think that's enough to secure a lock on the entire market. They are Apple after all.

It's all pretty exciting really. :-)

Kevin N.




On 4/9/10 9:45 PM, David Bergman wrote:
Not that I approve of what Apple is doing here, far from it, but: Apple does not have monopoly on anything, yet, but if they are lucky, they might get a monopoly on tablets soon, in which case such limitations could be considered illegal use of monopoly. So, perhaps the iPad success will force them to rethink matters.

/David
 
On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Justin Donaldson wrote:

This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax highlighting in your IDE.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in use: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser wars" of the last decade or so.

Best,
-Justin

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows machine.  It's just not cricket!

If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus One...

Lee







Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.

On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as this to me feels like it must be breaking some law in that it is being overly prescriptive on what users and programmers can use... it seems anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of interest in iphone platform.


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org




--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
Justin Donaldson
PhD Candidate, Informatics
Indiana University
http://www.scwn.net
aim: iujjd
twitter: jjdonald
--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
Justin Donaldson
PhD Candidate, Informatics
Indiana University
http://www.scwn.net
aim: iujjd
twitter: jjdonald

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Lee Sylvester
It won't. It's not really much of a strategy at all. It's more of an
arrogant self assured perspective, doomed to fail. Whether Android
overtakes in popularity or not, something will and soon.

Lee




Justin Donaldson wrote:

> Monopoly is a bit of an overstatement, but it still has some relative
> truth for this audience.
>
> iPhones are a small part of the market overall (probably less than ~10%):
> http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1306513
>
> However, they account for over 50% of mobile web usage:
> http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/iphone-now-50-percent-of-smartphone-web-traffic-in-the-us/
>
> If you have an innovative app, and you want access to a
> non-restricted/non-enterprise user base, iPhones are the best option.
>
> And as far as game apps go (which many here are interested in),
> they're by far the dominant platform (sorry android):
> http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/04/app-directory-myplayit-mobile-gaming-lags-on-android/
>
> I've never seen a company take such a standoffish approach with
> developers.  If Apple's strategy works, and they can stay dominant
> while dictating such ridiculous Orwellian terms to their developer
> community with no recourse,  I think it sets a very unsettling precedent.
>
> -Justin
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Kevin Newman <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Apple will not gain a monopoly on anything. Just like Android has
>     surged in market share in just a couple of months, so will their
>     tablets surge in popularity when they start shipping (and there
>     are a number of compelling products coming out within a few months
>     - from the looks of things). Then there's Microsoft, who's got the
>     Atom based tablet market (Slate) and I'd bet has a Windows Phone 7
>     Series (or whatever) variant for ARM based tablets in the works.
>
>     You can tell Apple is concerned, by the clear indications of the
>     rush job they did to push out the iPad. They won a victory on time
>     to market, but I don't think that's enough to secure a lock on the
>     entire market. They are Apple after all.
>
>     It's all pretty exciting really. :-)
>
>     Kevin N.
>
>
>
>
>     On 4/9/10 9:45 PM, David Bergman wrote:
>>     Not that I approve of what Apple is doing here, far from it, but:
>>     Apple does not have monopoly on anything, yet, but if they are
>>     lucky, they might get a monopoly on tablets soon, in which case
>>     such limitations could be considered illegal use of monopoly. So,
>>     perhaps the iPad success will force them to rethink matters.
>>
>>     /David
>>      
>>     On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Justin Donaldson wrote:
>>
>>>     This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to
>>>     regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax
>>>     highlighting in your IDE.
>>>
>>>     Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or
>>>     compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles
>>>     the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their
>>>     iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single
>>>     handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in
>>>     use:
>>>     http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>>>
>>>     In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive
>>>     behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple
>>>     gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so
>>>     thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser
>>>     wars" of the last decade or so.
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>     -Justin
>>>
>>>     On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester
>>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's
>>>         refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows
>>>         machine.  It's just not cricket!
>>>
>>>         If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus
>>>         One...
>>>
>>>         Lee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>>
>>>             oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.
>>>
>>>             On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>>
>>>                 http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
>>>
>>>                 I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's
>>>                 work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really
>>>                 hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as
>>>                 this to me feels like it must be breaking some law
>>>                 in that it is being overly prescriptive on what
>>>                 users and programmers can use... it seems
>>>                 anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about
>>>                 developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of
>>>                 interest in iphone platform.
>>>
>>>
>>>                 --
>>>                 haXe - an open source web programming language
>>>                 http://haxe.org <http://haxe.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         --
>>>         haXe - an open source web programming language
>>>         http://haxe.org <http://haxe.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Justin Donaldson
>>>     PhD Candidate, Informatics
>>>     Indiana University
>>>     http://www.scwn.net <http://www.scwn.net/>
>>>     aim: iujjd
>>>     twitter: jjdonald
>>>     --
>>>     haXe - an open source web programming language
>>>     http://haxe.org
>>
>
>
>     --
>     haXe - an open source web programming language
>     http://haxe.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Justin Donaldson
> PhD Candidate, Informatics
> Indiana University
> http://www.scwn.net
> aim: iujjd
> twitter: jjdonald


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

David Bergman
Lee, with all due respect, since you are one of the smartest guys in  
here, you are wrong ;-)

iPad is genius. And we will sheeply follow wherever our consumers lead  
us. I will create my core logic from haXe while creating all code that  
interacts with the Cocoa stuff in Objective-C++. I will stop swearing  
about it in three months.

/David

Typed on an iPhone

On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> It won't. It's not really much of a strategy at all. It's more of an  
> arrogant self assured perspective, doomed to fail. Whether Android  
> overtakes in popularity or not, something will and soon.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
> Justin Donaldson wrote:
>> Monopoly is a bit of an overstatement, but it still has some  
>> relative truth for this audience.
>>
>> iPhones are a small part of the market overall (probably less than  
>> ~10%):
>> http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1306513
>>
>> However, they account for over 50% of mobile web usage:
>> http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/iphone-now-50-percent-of-smartphone-web-traffic-in-the-us/
>>
>> If you have an innovative app, and you want access to a non-
>> restricted/non-enterprise user base, iPhones are the best option.
>>
>> And as far as game apps go (which many here are interested in),  
>> they're by far the dominant platform (sorry android):
>> http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/04/app-directory-myplayit-mobile-gaming-lags-on-android/
>>
>> I've never seen a company take such a standoffish approach with  
>> developers.  If Apple's strategy works, and they can stay dominant  
>> while dictating such ridiculous Orwellian terms to their developer  
>> community with no recourse,  I think it sets a very unsettling  
>> precedent.
>>
>> -Justin
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Kevin Newman <[hidden email]  
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>    Apple will not gain a monopoly on anything. Just like Android has
>>    surged in market share in just a couple of months, so will their
>>    tablets surge in popularity when they start shipping (and there
>>    are a number of compelling products coming out within a few months
>>    - from the looks of things). Then there's Microsoft, who's got the
>>    Atom based tablet market (Slate) and I'd bet has a Windows Phone 7
>>    Series (or whatever) variant for ARM based tablets in the works.
>>
>>    You can tell Apple is concerned, by the clear indications of the
>>    rush job they did to push out the iPad. They won a victory on time
>>    to market, but I don't think that's enough to secure a lock on the
>>    entire market. They are Apple after all.
>>
>>    It's all pretty exciting really. :-)
>>
>>    Kevin N.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    On 4/9/10 9:45 PM, David Bergman wrote:
>>>    Not that I approve of what Apple is doing here, far from it, but:
>>>    Apple does not have monopoly on anything, yet, but if they are
>>>    lucky, they might get a monopoly on tablets soon, in which case
>>>    such limitations could be considered illegal use of monopoly. So,
>>>    perhaps the iPad success will force them to rethink matters.
>>>
>>>    /David
>>>         On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Justin Donaldson wrote:
>>>
>>>>    This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to
>>>>    regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax
>>>>    highlighting in your IDE.
>>>>
>>>>    Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or
>>>>    compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles
>>>>    the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their
>>>>    iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single
>>>>    handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in
>>>>    use:
>>>>    http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>>>>
>>>>    In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive
>>>>    behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple
>>>>    gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so
>>>>    thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser
>>>>    wars" of the last decade or so.
>>>>
>>>>    Best,
>>>>    -Justin
>>>>
>>>>    On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester
>>>>    <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's
>>>>        refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows
>>>>        machine.  It's just not cricket!
>>>>
>>>>        If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus
>>>>        One...
>>>>
>>>>        Lee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>>>
>>>>            oops sorry was composing while the other thread went  
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>>            On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
>>>>
>>>>                I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's
>>>>                work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really
>>>>                hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as
>>>>                this to me feels like it must be breaking some law
>>>>                in that it is being overly prescriptive on what
>>>>                users and programmers can use... it seems
>>>>                anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about
>>>>                developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of
>>>>                interest in iphone platform.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                --                 haXe - an open source web  
>>>> programming language
>>>>                http://haxe.org <http://haxe.org/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        --         haXe - an open source web programming language
>>>>        http://haxe.org <http://haxe.org/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    --     Justin Donaldson
>>>>    PhD Candidate, Informatics
>>>>    Indiana University
>>>>    http://www.scwn.net <http://www.scwn.net/>
>>>>    aim: iujjd
>>>>    twitter: jjdonald
>>>>    --     haXe - an open source web programming language
>>>>    http://haxe.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>    --
>>    haXe - an open source web programming language
>>    http://haxe.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Justin Donaldson
>> PhD Candidate, Informatics
>> Indiana University
>> http://www.scwn.net
>> aim: iujjd
>> twitter: jjdonald
>
>
> --
> haXe - an open source web programming language
> http://haxe.org

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Lee Sylvester
The issue is, though, David is that, while Apple are the innovators,
they will not have the only tablet of its kind on the market. Many
others will follow and many others will have features that some find
preferable to Apple's. Sony, for example, will soon have a Vaio tablet
out which will be superior in some ways to the iPad, and inferior in
others. As there are a great many more Windows users than Apple users,
the number of Windows tablets will likely follow a similar suit. After
all, people will want to have compatible devices.

When people realise they can run their favourite Windows apps on a HP or
Dell tablet PC, they will invest their cash there, rather than Apple's
original. This will then give rise to phone / tablet / desktop PC
variants, where devices exist on the market that will be hybrids or
close relations of each other. Neither device will need *special*
software, as they will use the same OS. Apple's iPhone / iPad <--> Mac
suite will lose out, because the iPhone / iPad do not have the same OS
as the Mac. The same apps cannot be run on both.

The thing here, is that, reusability is king. If I can buy software for
my desktop app and have that run in my tablet PC and my mobile phone,
then I will not only make a saving, but I will also be able to use
software in all locations that I am familiar with. The iPhone / iPad /
Mac cannot attest to this. Event the iPhone and iPad aren't 100% compatible.

As developers, we started producing for one platform, then branched into
many as mobile devices became many. As time goes on, we'll once again
develop for a single platform, because standards will settle and device
developers will realise that technology moves too quick to expect a
developer to learn a new platform every time a new device debuts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, David. Merely that, while technology moves
fast, the consumer will opt for a combination of the most cheapest /
slickest / flexible device they can lay their hands on. In comparison,
we developers will do exactly the same, if not for the same reasons.

Lee





David Bergman wrote:

> Lee, with all due respect, since you are one of the smartest guys in
> here, you are wrong ;-)
>
> iPad is genius. And we will sheeply follow wherever our consumers lead
> us. I will create my core logic from haXe while creating all code that
> interacts with the Cocoa stuff in Objective-C++. I will stop swearing
> about it in three months.
>
> /David
>
> Typed on an iPhone
>
> On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It won't. It's not really much of a strategy at all. It's more of an
>> arrogant self assured perspective, doomed to fail. Whether Android
>> overtakes in popularity or not, something will and soon.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Justin Donaldson wrote:
>>> Monopoly is a bit of an overstatement, but it still has some
>>> relative truth for this audience.
>>>
>>> iPhones are a small part of the market overall (probably less than
>>> ~10%):
>>> http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1306513
>>>
>>> However, they account for over 50% of mobile web usage:
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/iphone-now-50-percent-of-smartphone-web-traffic-in-the-us/ 
>>>
>>>
>>> If you have an innovative app, and you want access to a
>>> non-restricted/non-enterprise user base, iPhones are the best option.
>>>
>>> And as far as game apps go (which many here are interested in),
>>> they're by far the dominant platform (sorry android):
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/04/app-directory-myplayit-mobile-gaming-lags-on-android/ 
>>>
>>>
>>> I've never seen a company take such a standoffish approach with
>>> developers.  If Apple's strategy works, and they can stay dominant
>>> while dictating such ridiculous Orwellian terms to their developer
>>> community with no recourse,  I think it sets a very unsettling
>>> precedent.
>>>
>>> -Justin
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Kevin Newman <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Apple will not gain a monopoly on anything. Just like Android has
>>>    surged in market share in just a couple of months, so will their
>>>    tablets surge in popularity when they start shipping (and there
>>>    are a number of compelling products coming out within a few months
>>>    - from the looks of things). Then there's Microsoft, who's got the
>>>    Atom based tablet market (Slate) and I'd bet has a Windows Phone 7
>>>    Series (or whatever) variant for ARM based tablets in the works.
>>>
>>>    You can tell Apple is concerned, by the clear indications of the
>>>    rush job they did to push out the iPad. They won a victory on time
>>>    to market, but I don't think that's enough to secure a lock on the
>>>    entire market. They are Apple after all.
>>>
>>>    It's all pretty exciting really. :-)
>>>
>>>    Kevin N.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    On 4/9/10 9:45 PM, David Bergman wrote:
>>>>    Not that I approve of what Apple is doing here, far from it, but:
>>>>    Apple does not have monopoly on anything, yet, but if they are
>>>>    lucky, they might get a monopoly on tablets soon, in which case
>>>>    such limitations could be considered illegal use of monopoly. So,
>>>>    perhaps the iPad success will force them to rethink matters.
>>>>
>>>>    /David
>>>>         On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Justin Donaldson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>    This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to
>>>>>    regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax
>>>>>    highlighting in your IDE.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or
>>>>>    compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles
>>>>>    the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their
>>>>>    iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single
>>>>>    handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in
>>>>>    use:
>>>>>    http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>>    In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive
>>>>>    behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple
>>>>>    gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so
>>>>>    thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser
>>>>>    wars" of the last decade or so.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Best,
>>>>>    -Justin
>>>>>
>>>>>    On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester
>>>>>    <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>        I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's
>>>>>        refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows
>>>>>        machine.  It's just not cricket!
>>>>>
>>>>>        If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus
>>>>>        One...
>>>>>
>>>>>        Lee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>        Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>            oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.
>>>>>
>>>>>            On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                
>>>>> http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's
>>>>>                work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really
>>>>>                hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as
>>>>>                this to me feels like it must be breaking some law
>>>>>                in that it is being overly prescriptive on what
>>>>>                users and programmers can use... it seems
>>>>>                anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about
>>>>>                developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of
>>>>>                interest in iphone platform.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                --                 haXe - an open source web
>>>>> programming language
>>>>>                http://haxe.org <http://haxe.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>        --         haXe - an open source web programming language
>>>>>        http://haxe.org <http://haxe.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    --     Justin Donaldson
>>>>>    PhD Candidate, Informatics
>>>>>    Indiana University
>>>>>    http://www.scwn.net <http://www.scwn.net/>
>>>>>    aim: iujjd
>>>>>    twitter: jjdonald
>>>>>    --     haXe - an open source web programming language
>>>>>    http://haxe.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    --
>>>    haXe - an open source web programming language
>>>    http://haxe.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Justin Donaldson
>>> PhD Candidate, Informatics
>>> Indiana University
>>> http://www.scwn.net
>>> aim: iujjd
>>> twitter: jjdonald
>>
>>
>> --
>> haXe - an open source web programming language
>> http://haxe.org
>


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iphone implications...

Baluta Cristian
Why would you use a windows application on a mini laptop without physical keyboard?
They are simply not done for that, Apple know what's doing.

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester <[hidden email]> wrote:
The issue is, though, David is that, while Apple are the innovators, they will not have the only tablet of its kind on the market. Many others will follow and many others will have features that some find preferable to Apple's. Sony, for example, will soon have a Vaio tablet out which will be superior in some ways to the iPad, and inferior in others. As there are a great many more Windows users than Apple users, the number of Windows tablets will likely follow a similar suit. After all, people will want to have compatible devices.

When people realise they can run their favourite Windows apps on a HP or Dell tablet PC, they will invest their cash there, rather than Apple's original. This will then give rise to phone / tablet / desktop PC variants, where devices exist on the market that will be hybrids or close relations of each other. Neither device will need *special* software, as they will use the same OS. Apple's iPhone / iPad <--> Mac suite will lose out, because the iPhone / iPad do not have the same OS as the Mac. The same apps cannot be run on both.

The thing here, is that, reusability is king. If I can buy software for my desktop app and have that run in my tablet PC and my mobile phone, then I will not only make a saving, but I will also be able to use software in all locations that I am familiar with. The iPhone / iPad / Mac cannot attest to this. Event the iPhone and iPad aren't 100% compatible.

As developers, we started producing for one platform, then branched into many as mobile devices became many. As time goes on, we'll once again develop for a single platform, because standards will settle and device developers will realise that technology moves too quick to expect a developer to learn a new platform every time a new device debuts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, David. Merely that, while technology moves fast, the consumer will opt for a combination of the most cheapest / slickest / flexible device they can lay their hands on. In comparison, we developers will do exactly the same, if not for the same reasons.

Lee






David Bergman wrote:
Lee, with all due respect, since you are one of the smartest guys in here, you are wrong ;-)

iPad is genius. And we will sheeply follow wherever our consumers lead us. I will create my core logic from haXe while creating all code that interacts with the Cocoa stuff in Objective-C++. I will stop swearing about it in three months.

/David

Typed on an iPhone

On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester <[hidden email]> wrote:

It won't. It's not really much of a strategy at all. It's more of an arrogant self assured perspective, doomed to fail. Whether Android overtakes in popularity or not, something will and soon.

Lee




Justin Donaldson wrote:
Monopoly is a bit of an overstatement, but it still has some relative truth for this audience.

iPhones are a small part of the market overall (probably less than ~10%):
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1306513

However, they account for over 50% of mobile web usage:
http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/iphone-now-50-percent-of-smartphone-web-traffic-in-the-us/

If you have an innovative app, and you want access to a non-restricted/non-enterprise user base, iPhones are the best option.

And as far as game apps go (which many here are interested in), they're by far the dominant platform (sorry android):
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/04/app-directory-myplayit-mobile-gaming-lags-on-android/

I've never seen a company take such a standoffish approach with developers.  If Apple's strategy works, and they can stay dominant while dictating such ridiculous Orwellian terms to their developer community with no recourse,  I think it sets a very unsettling precedent.

-Justin

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Kevin Newman <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

  Apple will not gain a monopoly on anything. Just like Android has
  surged in market share in just a couple of months, so will their
  tablets surge in popularity when they start shipping (and there
  are a number of compelling products coming out within a few months
  - from the looks of things). Then there's Microsoft, who's got the
  Atom based tablet market (Slate) and I'd bet has a Windows Phone 7
  Series (or whatever) variant for ARM based tablets in the works.

  You can tell Apple is concerned, by the clear indications of the
  rush job they did to push out the iPad. They won a victory on time
  to market, but I don't think that's enough to secure a lock on the
  entire market. They are Apple after all.

  It's all pretty exciting really. :-)

  Kevin N.




  On 4/9/10 9:45 PM, David Bergman wrote:
  Not that I approve of what Apple is doing here, far from it, but:
  Apple does not have monopoly on anything, yet, but if they are
  lucky, they might get a monopoly on tablets soon, in which case
  such limitations could be considered illegal use of monopoly. So,
  perhaps the iPad success will force them to rethink matters.

  /David
       On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Justin Donaldson wrote:

  This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to
  regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax
  highlighting in your IDE.

  Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or
  compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles
  the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their
  iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single
  handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in
  use:
  http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

  In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive
  behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple
  gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so
  thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser
  wars" of the last decade or so.

  Best,
  -Justin

  On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester
  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

      I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's
      refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows
      machine.  It's just not cricket!

      If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus
      One...

      Lee







      Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

          oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.

          On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

              http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

              I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's
              work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really
              hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as
              this to me feels like it must be breaking some law
              in that it is being overly prescriptive on what
              users and programmers can use... it seems
              anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about
              developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of
              interest in iphone platform.


              --                 haXe - an open source web programming language
              http://haxe.org <http://haxe.org/>





      --         haXe - an open source web programming language
      http://haxe.org <http://haxe.org/>




  --     Justin Donaldson
  PhD Candidate, Informatics
  Indiana University
  http://www.scwn.net <http://www.scwn.net/>
  aim: iujjd
  twitter: jjdonald
  --     haXe - an open source web programming language
  http://haxe.org



  --
  haXe - an open source web programming language
  http://haxe.org




--
Justin Donaldson
PhD Candidate, Informatics
Indiana University
http://www.scwn.net
aim: iujjd
twitter: jjdonald


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org



--
Băluță Cristian
http://ralcr.com
http://imagin.ro

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: iphone implications...

Elliott Carlson

For the same reasons there are Windows tablet PC’s – you can use both on screen keyboards, or flip it around for the actual keyboard. In this case you would only have the onscreen keyboard.

 

 

 


From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Baluta Cristian
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:19 PM
To: The haXe compiler list
Subject: Re: [haXe] iphone implications...

 

Why would you use a windows application on a mini laptop without physical keyboard?

They are simply not done for that, Apple know what's doing.

 

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester <[hidden email]> wrote:

The issue is, though, David is that, while Apple are the innovators, they will not have the only tablet of its kind on the market. Many others will follow and many others will have features that some find preferable to Apple's. Sony, for example, will soon have a Vaio tablet out which will be superior in some ways to the iPad, and inferior in others. As there are a great many more Windows users than Apple users, the number of Windows tablets will likely follow a similar suit. After all, people will want to have compatible devices.

When people realise they can run their favourite Windows apps on a HP or Dell tablet PC, they will invest their cash there, rather than Apple's original. This will then give rise to phone / tablet / desktop PC variants, where devices exist on the market that will be hybrids or close relations of each other. Neither device will need *special* software, as they will use the same OS. Apple's iPhone / iPad <--> Mac suite will lose out, because the iPhone / iPad do not have the same OS as the Mac. The same apps cannot be run on both.

The thing here, is that, reusability is king. If I can buy software for my desktop app and have that run in my tablet PC and my mobile phone, then I will not only make a saving, but I will also be able to use software in all locations that I am familiar with. The iPhone / iPad / Mac cannot attest to this. Event the iPhone and iPad aren't 100% compatible.

As developers, we started producing for one platform, then branched into many as mobile devices became many. As time goes on, we'll once again develop for a single platform, because standards will settle and device developers will realise that technology moves too quick to expect a developer to learn a new platform every time a new device debuts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, David. Merely that, while technology moves fast, the consumer will opt for a combination of the most cheapest / slickest / flexible device they can lay their hands on. In comparison, we developers will do exactly the same, if not for the same reasons.

Lee







David Bergman wrote:

Lee, with all due respect, since you are one of the smartest guys in here, you are wrong ;-)

iPad is genius. And we will sheeply follow wherever our consumers lead us. I will create my core logic from haXe while creating all code that interacts with the Cocoa stuff in Objective-C++. I will stop swearing about it in three months.

/David

Typed on an iPhone

On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester <[hidden email]> wrote:

It won't. It's not really much of a strategy at all. It's more of an arrogant self assured perspective, doomed to fail. Whether Android overtakes in popularity or not, something will and soon.

Lee




Justin Donaldson wrote:

Monopoly is a bit of an overstatement, but it still has some relative truth for this audience.

iPhones are a small part of the market overall (probably less than ~10%):
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1306513

However, they account for over 50% of mobile web usage:
http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/iphone-now-50-percent-of-smartphone-web-traffic-in-the-us/

If you have an innovative app, and you want access to a non-restricted/non-enterprise user base, iPhones are the best option.

And as far as game apps go (which many here are interested in), they're by far the dominant platform (sorry android):
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/04/app-directory-myplayit-mobile-gaming-lags-on-android/

I've never seen a company take such a standoffish approach with developers.  If Apple's strategy works, and they can stay dominant while dictating such ridiculous Orwellian terms to their developer community with no recourse,  I think it sets a very unsettling precedent.

-Justin

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Kevin Newman <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

  Apple will not gain a monopoly on anything. Just like Android has
  surged in market share in just a couple of months, so will their
  tablets surge in popularity when they start shipping (and there
  are a number of compelling products coming out within a few months
  - from the looks of things). Then there's Microsoft, who's got the
  Atom based tablet market (Slate) and I'd bet has a Windows Phone 7
  Series (or whatever) variant for ARM based tablets in the works.

  You can tell Apple is concerned, by the clear indications of the
  rush job they did to push out the iPad. They won a victory on time
  to market, but I don't think that's enough to secure a lock on the
  entire market. They are Apple after all.

  It's all pretty exciting really. :-)

  Kevin N.




  On 4/9/10 9:45 PM, David Bergman wrote:

  Not that I approve of what Apple is doing here, far from it, but:
  Apple does not have monopoly on anything, yet, but if they are
  lucky, they might get a monopoly on tablets soon, in which case
  such limitations could be considered illegal use of monopoly. So,
  perhaps the iPad success will force them to rethink matters.

  /David
       On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Justin Donaldson wrote:

  This is pretty ballsy.  The only thing left is for Apple to
  regulate which colors you are allowed to use for syntax
  highlighting in your IDE.

  Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with ensuring quality or
  compatibility.  There's so much crap in the app store it boggles
  the mind.  They are trying to lock as many developers into their
  iphone /ipad workflow as possible.  ipad development has single
  handedly put objective C in the top 10/11 languages currently in
  use:
  http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

  In my opinion, this is twice as worse as the anticompetitive
  behavior by Microsoft from recent years.  I really hope Apple
  gets nailed on this, I didn't expect to see a company so
  thoroughly exploit their monopoly so soon after the "browser
  wars" of the last decade or so.

  Best,
  -Justin

  On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Lee McColl Sylvester
  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

      I'm sure this is illegal.  The same can be said of Apple's
      refusal to allow app's that are compiled on a Windows
      machine.  It's just not cricket!

      If you ask me, I can't wait to ditch my iPhone for a Nexus
      One...

      Lee







      Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

          oops sorry was composing while the other thread went out.

          On 8 Apr 2010, at 23:03, Justin Lawerance Mills wrote:

              http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

              I don't know if this has any ramifications on Huge's
              work, I am not sure what opinions are, but I really
              hope Adobe challenge Apple in the european courts as
              this to me feels like it must be breaking some law
              in that it is being overly prescriptive on what
              users and programmers can use... it seems
              anti-competitive.   Make's me wonder about
              developing on a Mac, and confirms my lack of
              interest in iphone platform.


              --                 haXe - an open source web programming language
              http://haxe.org <http://haxe.org/>





      --         haXe - an open source web programming language
      http://haxe.org <http://haxe.org/>




  --     Justin Donaldson
  PhD Candidate, Informatics
  Indiana University
  http://www.scwn.net <http://www.scwn.net/>
  aim: iujjd
  twitter: jjdonald
  --     haXe - an open source web programming language
  http://haxe.org

 



  --
  haXe - an open source web programming language
  http://haxe.org




--
Justin Donaldson
PhD Candidate, Informatics
Indiana University
http://www.scwn.net
aim: iujjd
twitter: jjdonald



--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org

 



--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org




--
Băluță Cristian
http://ralcr.com
http://imagin.ro


--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org