I know because I write cross platform static libraries for the iPhone/Mac/Windows and have never had an issue. In fact, Apple even has a iPhone static library template built into the SDK.
Static libraries are totally allowed on the iPhone. Cross platform static libraries are allowed. The only time Apple throws a fit is when you aren't using their compiler/SDK for your application.
People write their own compilers. They get rejected.
As sad as I am that this got turned down, it's still not playing by the rules...
Everything that has gotten approved so far uses XCode as a build step. You don't necessarily have to do all your development work in XCode (i.e. Unity game engine), but the end result needs to be an XCode project. This is what really killed Flash. They didn't just add Flash as a library you could add to your iPhone app. They attempted to ship an entire self contained IDE and compiler that didn't let you combine your work at all with a native app.
Cross compile to an XCode project with things like static libraries for your runtime and everything will be fine.
What price? He bought hardware that got old. It wasn't new enough to run the latest version of Mac OS X. He had many other options. He could have upgraded to Safari 3.0 which was supported on his machine. He may have been able to install Leopard with a new version of Safari. He could have moved to Firefox. He could have moved to Linux. He had plenty of options, I'm not sure why he didn't take any of them.
As far as being able to upgrade the hardware, most things in an iMac G4 are perfectly upgradable, however, the CPU isn't. This is true of most all in one computers and laptops. I don't see anything implicitly Apple about any of this.
They're aware, and have reviewed other Android devices, but the Android devices in general don't meet their standards. There are other tradeoffs in hardware and software quality.
I'm not saying that Android in general doesn't work, but no one has produced a decent Android slate yet. Also, with the number of devices, you need excellent hardware support. One advantage with Apple is that they will train and allow employees to do on site repairs under warranty, have a good parts supply chain, and decent turnaround on repairs that have to go offsite.
Until a big company comes out with a 10" Android slate (Dell, HP, etc) we can't really trust that the repair support chain is going to be there.
"Sure there'ss a difference, and Apple isn't trying to stop anyone else from delivering it. Try it for yourself: go to any porn site with Mobile Safari. Apple's not going to host porn apps on the App store, and that's a good business decision."
I agree they're not stopping anyone from doing anything in Mobile Safari, but at that point you have to ask why they're stopping sideloading of apps. There is nothing stopping XCode from provisioning for non app store free distribution (like it already does for beta testing purposes), and iPhone OS being UNIX can already securely sandbox things.
It's kind of a weird distinction to make. "We won't let the user load their own porn apps on for the childrens! But the childrens are welcome to use Safari to find porn!" If you're freely allowing content via one medium, why are you blocking it in another?
"Well, sure there's going to be porn on the iPhone too, but Apple's not going to be the company that delivers it."
There is a difference between Apple delivering porn, and Apple attempting to stop everyone else from delivering it.
I've worked for an organization that buys Apple products in several thousand batches (they're the biggest spenders on Apple products in education in their respective state. And the state in question is a west coast state that is very big on technology.) The major holdup with the iPad has been sideloading. It's very difficult for an organization to manage iPads en masse when they can't even manage the deployed software easily. The lack of sideloading was first blamed on mobile applications threatening cell networks (which everyone knows is a load of bull), and then more recently, porn.
The organization in question currently runs off Macbooks. The kids have loaded porn on the Macbooks. Before that we had desktop machines. The kids loaded porn on those. Hell, I remember before we had computers and the kids brought porno magazines to school. Yes, we were concerned about porn, but it was nothing new.
While Apple restricting the device makes it easier for us to enforce discipline, it also cuts us off at the knees and almost makes the iPad a non starter in enterprise. Yes, Apple does offer a private app store for your organization. But that doesn't really mean much when we need a way of loading software onto thousands of devices at once.
Apple is supposedly sending engineers to my old employer to look at these issues. I hope it results in an improvement to the manageability of iPhone OS.
"As much as I enjoyed watching SJ take that clown to school, it probably isn't a good idea for him to do so since there's likely to be litigation against his employer in the near future."
Jobs was doing well until he brought up porn.
Porn has been published in every medium known to man since the beginning of time. We have literally found porn cave paintings. Porn is nothing new, and will continue to exist. And as long as it's existed, kids have always gotten their hands on it.
Steve acting as if it was some new fad that Apple is attempting to stem is disturbing. I'm not saying they need to start putting porn in the app store, but c'mon, Apple stopping sideloading so they can keep the iPhone free of porn? There are already ways of getting porn on the device (web), and kids can very easily jailbreak the thing to load on whatever they want. Apple is making a dumb stand on principle.
He told the Gawker editor that he'd understand if he had kids. One has to wonder if this is a result of a bad experience Steve has personally had with his family, and not so much a business decision.
"One thing that I think would be a good idea for Facebook to implement would be rule-based access privileges for different groups that you can define. The groups shouldn't be visible to anyone other than yourself, of course; the last thing you'd need would be for "friends" to see that they weren't "good friends.""
Facebook actually already has this. I use it all the time. Grouped my co-workers into a group, and I can exclude them from seeing certain posts (of a more personal nature, not things about them.)
"They're banning it and all other third-party frameworks in an effort to prevent cross-platform applications, even if they compile to Objective-C, which is downright evil."
Huh? No they aren't. Third party frameworks are totally allowed. If you compile to Obj-C, you're totally allowed to be on the platform. Stuff like SDL is totally allowed.
Flash was neither. They implemented their own LLVM based compiler to compile their own binaries that did not touch Objective-C, and they certainly did not implement Flash as a third party framework.
(Disclaimer: I maintain a third party framework for iPhone/iPad. Apple even has a library target in XCode to help developers create their third party frameworks.)
"The same is likely going to happen with iPads. Apple pushed the thing out the door quickly, but low-cost tablets have been in the pipeline for a couple of years, and you're likely going to see $200-$300 tablets with better specs than the iPad and no software restrictions this year."
The Macbook Air still sells fairly well. But it's a ultra light notebook, not a netbook. It has a good discrete laptop GPU, a full Core 2 Duo processor, and a normal sized screen. It's a different product category, and I don't think Apple expected to sell the same volume of laptops. As far as an ultra light, it's probably the best selling ultra light on the market.
Re:It's not that Flash in particular is a right...
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 1
"Also I'm mostly annoyed by the obvious hippocracy that it shows on the part of apple."
"Car makers aren't allowed to just void your warranty for not using "Ford" brand gasoline; "Ford" brand tires; "Ford" brand spark plugs; etc."
To a reasonable degree. If you put bicycle tires on your car and use model airplane gasoline, you probably will have your warranty voided.
Apple makes it well known that they won't support jailbroken iPhones (much as a car company has a clause saying they won't cover some things they consider "abuse"). And, for the record, Google/HTC do not support rooted Nexus One phones either.
That doesn't mean these companies will stop you from doing these things. And at least with the iPhone, you can always flash back to supported status (as I've seen them do with jailbroken phones before). But it's not realistic to assume any software company is going to do support on their software when the kernel and the OS have been altered.
Technically you don't. You can jailbreak. Apple doesn't have to support it, but it's your hardware to jailbreak.
You do own the hardware, and you can do anything you want with it. Apple, understandably, won't support it if you do. Just like if you bought a computer with Windows, loaded Linux, and then called up your computer company's support line with software questions. With a few exceptions, you won't get support until you're back to stock config.
"I'm impressed he can afford to buy it and give it away even to their OEM vendors."
I dunno. Apple gives away tons of free H.264 licenses with their software (QuickTime, iTunes) on Windows. H.264 licenses aren't that expensive, even though I'm pretty sure they are per machine/download. (The max license fee for the encoder is two cents a disk.)
How so? Mac developers use QTKit all the time, which uses H.264 as it's primary format, and no one has gotten sued. Windows 7 just added H.264 for it's media playback frameworks, and I haven't heard of anyone getting sued over there...
I really don't think there is a good technical reason why the Mozilla folks don't implement H.264. I do think they are doing it for political reasons though. As soon as they implement H.264, H.264 is supported in all major browsers, meaning H.264 will when. They're purposely being the wrench in the gears to stop H.264 from being standardized.
I think that should be obvious - Mozilla has literally no way of offering H.264 without illegally implementing patented code.
Sure they do. Almost all the platforms they support come with a H.264 decoder. They just need to use the decoder that comes with the OS. That is why OS vendors include the library in the first place, after all, so that software vendors don't have to pony up for the H.264 license themselves.
If they didn't want to merge this into the main branch they could even implement it as a plugin.
Jobs actually specifically mentioned this, and said that a lot of Flash videos are not H.264, will not work with the hardware decoder, and would provide and inconsistent user experience.
Not to mention there is always the Flash GUI wrapped around the video.
To be fair, nowhere did Steve say that Apple was a member of a suit against Theora. They don't own any of the relevant patents. But they would be in a position to know if someone who did hold a patent in MPEG-LA was working on a suit.
"For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."
I think they've been pissed at Adobe since the late 90's when Adobe wouldn't support Cocoa, and basically threatened to leave the platform unless Apple added Carbon.
Of course, Adobe just ended up having to move to Cocoa 10 years later.
The only proprietary thing required seems to be QuickTime (for H.264), looking at their build directions. Apple added Win32 rendering a while ago... And the network components are open source under CFLite.
That's a horrible analogy. An Intel Mac is factually better in every single way. It's like saying you're buying Coke, you KNOW Pepsi is better, but you're going to continue drinking Coke anyway, because well, Coke is Coke and you just don't like that Pepsi thing. For no apparent reason.
Your analogy breaks down because you're trying to say Coke and Pepsi are really not that different, it's just a matter of taste. But in practice a PowerPC is in no way competitive with a modern Intel Mac.
I wouldn't have mentioned anything if you hadn't said you were never going to buy another Mac again. Plenty of people still run on G5's, and that's a totally valid choice. They obviously like their hardware, and it is still doing what they need. However, those people aren't making some sort of stand because they've decided to never buy an Intel Mac.
If you're saying that you never plan to buy another Mac and are instead looking at an Intel based Linux or Wintel box, then you don't really have a problem running Source games.
Slashdot Mirror
I know because I write cross platform static libraries for the iPhone/Mac/Windows and have never had an issue. In fact, Apple even has a iPhone static library template built into the SDK.
Static libraries are totally allowed on the iPhone. Cross platform static libraries are allowed. The only time Apple throws a fit is when you aren't using their compiler/SDK for your application.
People write their own compilers. They get rejected.
As sad as I am that this got turned down, it's still not playing by the rules...
Everything that has gotten approved so far uses XCode as a build step. You don't necessarily have to do all your development work in XCode (i.e. Unity game engine), but the end result needs to be an XCode project. This is what really killed Flash. They didn't just add Flash as a library you could add to your iPhone app. They attempted to ship an entire self contained IDE and compiler that didn't let you combine your work at all with a native app.
Cross compile to an XCode project with things like static libraries for your runtime and everything will be fine.
What price? He bought hardware that got old. It wasn't new enough to run the latest version of Mac OS X. He had many other options. He could have upgraded to Safari 3.0 which was supported on his machine. He may have been able to install Leopard with a new version of Safari. He could have moved to Firefox. He could have moved to Linux. He had plenty of options, I'm not sure why he didn't take any of them.
As far as being able to upgrade the hardware, most things in an iMac G4 are perfectly upgradable, however, the CPU isn't. This is true of most all in one computers and laptops. I don't see anything implicitly Apple about any of this.
They're aware, and have reviewed other Android devices, but the Android devices in general don't meet their standards. There are other tradeoffs in hardware and software quality.
I'm not saying that Android in general doesn't work, but no one has produced a decent Android slate yet. Also, with the number of devices, you need excellent hardware support. One advantage with Apple is that they will train and allow employees to do on site repairs under warranty, have a good parts supply chain, and decent turnaround on repairs that have to go offsite.
Until a big company comes out with a 10" Android slate (Dell, HP, etc) we can't really trust that the repair support chain is going to be there.
"Sure there'ss a difference, and Apple isn't trying to stop anyone else from delivering it. Try it for yourself: go to any porn site with Mobile Safari. Apple's not going to host porn apps on the App store, and that's a good business decision."
I agree they're not stopping anyone from doing anything in Mobile Safari, but at that point you have to ask why they're stopping sideloading of apps. There is nothing stopping XCode from provisioning for non app store free distribution (like it already does for beta testing purposes), and iPhone OS being UNIX can already securely sandbox things.
It's kind of a weird distinction to make. "We won't let the user load their own porn apps on for the childrens! But the childrens are welcome to use Safari to find porn!" If you're freely allowing content via one medium, why are you blocking it in another?
"Well, sure there's going to be porn on the iPhone too, but Apple's not going to be the company that delivers it."
There is a difference between Apple delivering porn, and Apple attempting to stop everyone else from delivering it.
I've worked for an organization that buys Apple products in several thousand batches (they're the biggest spenders on Apple products in education in their respective state. And the state in question is a west coast state that is very big on technology.) The major holdup with the iPad has been sideloading. It's very difficult for an organization to manage iPads en masse when they can't even manage the deployed software easily. The lack of sideloading was first blamed on mobile applications threatening cell networks (which everyone knows is a load of bull), and then more recently, porn.
The organization in question currently runs off Macbooks. The kids have loaded porn on the Macbooks. Before that we had desktop machines. The kids loaded porn on those. Hell, I remember before we had computers and the kids brought porno magazines to school. Yes, we were concerned about porn, but it was nothing new.
While Apple restricting the device makes it easier for us to enforce discipline, it also cuts us off at the knees and almost makes the iPad a non starter in enterprise. Yes, Apple does offer a private app store for your organization. But that doesn't really mean much when we need a way of loading software onto thousands of devices at once.
Apple is supposedly sending engineers to my old employer to look at these issues. I hope it results in an improvement to the manageability of iPhone OS.
"As much as I enjoyed watching SJ take that clown to school, it probably isn't a good idea for him to do so since there's likely to be litigation against his employer in the near future."
Jobs was doing well until he brought up porn.
Porn has been published in every medium known to man since the beginning of time. We have literally found porn cave paintings. Porn is nothing new, and will continue to exist. And as long as it's existed, kids have always gotten their hands on it.
Steve acting as if it was some new fad that Apple is attempting to stem is disturbing. I'm not saying they need to start putting porn in the app store, but c'mon, Apple stopping sideloading so they can keep the iPhone free of porn? There are already ways of getting porn on the device (web), and kids can very easily jailbreak the thing to load on whatever they want. Apple is making a dumb stand on principle.
He told the Gawker editor that he'd understand if he had kids. One has to wonder if this is a result of a bad experience Steve has personally had with his family, and not so much a business decision.
"One thing that I think would be a good idea for Facebook to implement would be rule-based access privileges for different groups that you can define. The groups shouldn't be visible to anyone other than yourself, of course; the last thing you'd need would be for "friends" to see that they weren't "good friends.""
Facebook actually already has this. I use it all the time. Grouped my co-workers into a group, and I can exclude them from seeing certain posts (of a more personal nature, not things about them.)
"They're banning it and all other third-party frameworks in an effort to prevent cross-platform applications, even if they compile to Objective-C, which is downright evil."
Huh? No they aren't. Third party frameworks are totally allowed. If you compile to Obj-C, you're totally allowed to be on the platform. Stuff like SDL is totally allowed.
Flash was neither. They implemented their own LLVM based compiler to compile their own binaries that did not touch Objective-C, and they certainly did not implement Flash as a third party framework.
(Disclaimer: I maintain a third party framework for iPhone/iPad. Apple even has a library target in XCode to help developers create their third party frameworks.)
2001 called. They want their joke back.
"The same is likely going to happen with iPads. Apple pushed the thing out the door quickly, but low-cost tablets have been in the pipeline for a couple of years, and you're likely going to see $200-$300 tablets with better specs than the iPad and no software restrictions this year."
The Macbook Air still sells fairly well. But it's a ultra light notebook, not a netbook. It has a good discrete laptop GPU, a full Core 2 Duo processor, and a normal sized screen. It's a different product category, and I don't think Apple expected to sell the same volume of laptops. As far as an ultra light, it's probably the best selling ultra light on the market.
"Also I'm mostly annoyed by the obvious hippocracy that it shows on the part of apple."
Did you just call Apple fat?
"Car makers aren't allowed to just void your warranty for not using "Ford" brand gasoline; "Ford" brand tires; "Ford" brand spark plugs; etc."
To a reasonable degree. If you put bicycle tires on your car and use model airplane gasoline, you probably will have your warranty voided.
Apple makes it well known that they won't support jailbroken iPhones (much as a car company has a clause saying they won't cover some things they consider "abuse"). And, for the record, Google/HTC do not support rooted Nexus One phones either.
That doesn't mean these companies will stop you from doing these things. And at least with the iPhone, you can always flash back to supported status (as I've seen them do with jailbroken phones before). But it's not realistic to assume any software company is going to do support on their software when the kernel and the OS have been altered.
Technically you don't. You can jailbreak. Apple doesn't have to support it, but it's your hardware to jailbreak.
You do own the hardware, and you can do anything you want with it. Apple, understandably, won't support it if you do. Just like if you bought a computer with Windows, loaded Linux, and then called up your computer company's support line with software questions. With a few exceptions, you won't get support until you're back to stock config.
"I'm impressed he can afford to buy it and give it away even to their OEM vendors."
I dunno. Apple gives away tons of free H.264 licenses with their software (QuickTime, iTunes) on Windows. H.264 licenses aren't that expensive, even though I'm pretty sure they are per machine/download. (The max license fee for the encoder is two cents a disk.)
when = win. I can spell. Really...
How so? Mac developers use QTKit all the time, which uses H.264 as it's primary format, and no one has gotten sued. Windows 7 just added H.264 for it's media playback frameworks, and I haven't heard of anyone getting sued over there...
I really don't think there is a good technical reason why the Mozilla folks don't implement H.264. I do think they are doing it for political reasons though. As soon as they implement H.264, H.264 is supported in all major browsers, meaning H.264 will when. They're purposely being the wrench in the gears to stop H.264 from being standardized.
I think that should be obvious - Mozilla has literally no way of offering H.264 without illegally implementing patented code.
Sure they do. Almost all the platforms they support come with a H.264 decoder. They just need to use the decoder that comes with the OS. That is why OS vendors include the library in the first place, after all, so that software vendors don't have to pony up for the H.264 license themselves.
If they didn't want to merge this into the main branch they could even implement it as a plugin.
Jobs actually specifically mentioned this, and said that a lot of Flash videos are not H.264, will not work with the hardware decoder, and would provide and inconsistent user experience.
Not to mention there is always the Flash GUI wrapped around the video.
They care about farmville,
Farmville is flash....
Not for long...
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/21/its-coming-farmville-heading-to-iphone-and-ipad/
To be fair, nowhere did Steve say that Apple was a member of a suit against Theora. They don't own any of the relevant patents. But they would be in a position to know if someone who did hold a patent in MPEG-LA was working on a suit.
No, it's included.
"For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."
Cocoa is the 64 bit API.
I think they've been pissed at Adobe since the late 90's when Adobe wouldn't support Cocoa, and basically threatened to leave the platform unless Apple added Carbon.
Of course, Adobe just ended up having to move to Cocoa 10 years later.
The only proprietary thing required seems to be QuickTime (for H.264), looking at their build directions. Apple added Win32 rendering a while ago... And the network components are open source under CFLite.
That's a horrible analogy. An Intel Mac is factually better in every single way. It's like saying you're buying Coke, you KNOW Pepsi is better, but you're going to continue drinking Coke anyway, because well, Coke is Coke and you just don't like that Pepsi thing. For no apparent reason.
Your analogy breaks down because you're trying to say Coke and Pepsi are really not that different, it's just a matter of taste. But in practice a PowerPC is in no way competitive with a modern Intel Mac.
I wouldn't have mentioned anything if you hadn't said you were never going to buy another Mac again. Plenty of people still run on G5's, and that's a totally valid choice. They obviously like their hardware, and it is still doing what they need. However, those people aren't making some sort of stand because they've decided to never buy an Intel Mac.
If you're saying that you never plan to buy another Mac and are instead looking at an Intel based Linux or Wintel box, then you don't really have a problem running Source games.