More delicately, a photo studio might be the only kind of business that will overwhelmingly be an Apple shop, which explains the iPhone prevalence in that case.
Talk to me when it's an accounting firm or whatever.
If the rest of the world wants to pay the developers to build that software, I'm certain that many would jump at the chance. The fact is, people get something for free and then they bitch when it doesn't do everything they think it should do, because it's never been something important to the developers.
Tell me, when you're doing your hobby, say, gardening, what would you do if some random schmuck came up to you and said "I really like peas, and you aren't planting any, so you suck. You should plant peas."?
That would depend on whether or not I'm telling passers-by that they're schmucks for shopping for food at supermarkets instead of growing their own free food.
How many seats of Flash CS5 do you have to purchase before the per-seat cost falls below $600?
And you have assumed all of my developers are proficient with xcode/objective-c/mac os x.
And you're assuming that all of your developers are already proficient in Flash.
And you have assumed no other costs involved with purchasing new hardware.
This one is actually a valid point. There are indeed other costs, but a keyboard, mouse, and display do not increase costs significantly.
So I will now assume you have no clue about the business side of development (or business in general).
I know plenty about business. You want maximum dollars for minimum effort. Wanting that is fine. But the shit you and the rest of your buddies on elance develop is probably just that--LCD shit.
You must use apple, apple, and apple only. If you choose to use anything but apple, you cannot use apple. So in order to develop anything useful for apple, i MUST fork over more money to apple. What's wrong with this paragraph.
Nothing. You just don't like it. Too bad.
Your statistics are void because they are about smartphones and they were compiled before the ipad was released. Care to provide a different set of statistics to further prove my point?
Instead of trying to find a set of statistics you might like, how about you cherry pick the market you want and share your statistics with me?
The problem is that it's not illegal to develop or distribute tools which violate the DMCA. It's just illegal to actually use them.
I don't like the DMCA either, kid. But let's at least be honest about what it says.
It turns out that it is in fact illegal to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that," among other things, "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." (17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)).
As an independent developer I have to spend more money to develop for the iphone since I must use a Mac and I must use Snow Leopard. Adobe allowed me to skirt this requirement by using Flash, which has a significantly lower starting cost. Lower starting cost = entry to market = lower out of pocket funding for iphone development.
Flash CS5 is the only product that comes with the Flash-to-.ipa converter. It retails for $700. The Mac Mini starts at $600. Last I checked, $600 was less than $700.
They don't have the funds to start a legal fight, nor could they survive apple's change in terms of services. That, sir, is a monopoly. Apple has a monopoly on the market.
Let's get a couple of things straightened out:
1) Changing your terms of service does not give you a monopoly in your market. 2) Apple's US smartphone marketshare is 25%--18% less than RIM. How can you have a monopoly in your market if you're not even the largest player?
I'd ask for a refund on whatever it was you spent on your "education."
Re:IT'S CALLED TRANSLATED CODE, NOT THE SAME!
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 1
Apple wants to stomp developers who would build something out in a high-level environment/language, and then translate it to another language that is more appropriate for their target platform.
No, Apple wants to stomp third-party multi-platform SDKs that don't produce a good experience on any platform.
Jobs has obfuscated this with his letter because he's trying to hide some very nasty politics/business practices.
No obfuscation at all. He comes right out and says it. Thoughts on Flash:
We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.
This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.
Not everything, but no hardware manufacturer has the right to dictate what tools you may and may not use to develop on their platform.
Apple's not dictating what tools you may or may not use to develop on iPhone OS. Apple's dictating what tools you may use to develop software you wish to distribute through their distribution channel.
I'm sure the Cydia store would have no problem approving Flash-to-.ipa iPhone OS apps.
If you want to use Apple's distribution channel, you have to play by Apple's rules. If you don't like Apple's rules, there's always Android.
You still think that you're going to have a desktop in 5 years, don't you?
I don't know what I'm going to have in five years. Neither do you.
By 2020, you will not be able to buy a phone without the ability to dock it in this manner.
You're extrapolating today's use cases to what will be possible with tomorrow's technology.
Here's a hint for you: Today's use cases won't be around in 2020. I don't know what will be on my desk in 2020, but I can almost guarantee you it won't be a docking station for my mobile phone into which I plug in a monitor and a printer.
As for the Exchange support you claim that Nano has, it requires that Exchange is reconfigured with web support unless it already is, and alternative authentication to NTLM -- good luck convincing your Fortune 500 company to do that because your iPad doesn't work.
Maybe your Exchange administrators have a good reason for not allowing OMA (e.g., corporate security policy). Maybe they don't (e.g., fear of the unknown). Regardless, your beef should be with your Exchange administrators and not with Apple. Microsoft's Exchange team wants MAPI to go away, but the Outlook team is (understandably) scared of what that might mean for them.
Actually, it is a bitch to install them in their laptops. Unless you have 2cm miniature sized torx6 tools. They don't give you any room to get the screwdriver in there. And actually getting the ram and hd in and out is kind of awkward, unless you use a specially designed tool to grab the edges and pull straight out.
Not that I'd actually expect you to have worked on one, Apple apologists are always the same. There can't ever be a flaw in their precious products, because they spent so fucking much on them. Any flaw would mean they weren't perfect, which would imply they weren't perfect. Boo hoo. Learn to accept that it's halfway decent hardware, but it's not the best, and it's certainly could be designed to be far easier to work on.
I've put more RAM and a larger HD in every Apple notebook I've owned—even the oh-so-magical-to-reassemble original PowerBook G4, so yes, I've worked on one and I know how bad it used to be.
Requiring a T6, which can be found in any hardware or big box store you enjoy, does not make it hard to work in it. And while they don't give you room enough for your a gigantic magnetic multidriver, I've never had difficulty with any of the drivers I have.
Could it be easier to work in a MacBook or MacBook Pro? Yes, if they designed them to be larger in all dimensions. But are they "actively designed to make working in them as hard as possible" as was asserted above? Absolutely not. They're designed to strike a balance between making it somewhat easy for the owner to upgrade RAM and HD and being as thin as possible.
I assume by "case" you're not referring to the physical case of any Apple product made in the past decade, because those are actively designed to make working in them as hard as possible.
Yeah, the Mac Pros are really a bitch to move around in what with not having to worry about the tangle of ribbon cables.
Also it's really hard to install memory or a hard drive in their new laptops.
But instead of 10 background tasks monitoring twitter, RSS, AIM, Facebook, etc., there's just one task.
And chances are it's not killing the battery by chewing 10% CPU all the time for no reason just because the guy who wrote it doesn't know what Instruments is or how to use it.
This is probably true and isn't that bad (I remember having to clear memory on my old PDA which was odd since it supposedly hid that from the user) in most cases.
Why hide it from the user when you can eliminate it as a concern instead?
However, I would like to be able to copy/paste between applications without having to start and stop each as I move between them. Since copy/paste is the only real way to move data between most applications, the start and stop and start process gets a bit old after awhile. Perhaps we can have one background task in a new iPhone OS?
Or maybe application developers can follow Apple's guidelines and write applications that retain state and launch quickly.
I do wish they had decided to simply make a multi touch computer instead, it would have been much more exciting.
Apple did, in fact, make a multi-touch computer. It's called the iPad.
Simply slapping a multi-touch screen on a MacBook—which is what it seems a lot of people think Apple should have done—would have been a huge, huge mistake. Touch is worthless without software designed to be touched.
Software designed for Windows, Mac OS, KDE, Gnome, etc. is intended to be used with a keyboard and mouse as primary input devices. There simply isn't a way to create a good experience using these applications when you replace the keyboard and mouse with an intermittent on-screen keyboard and fingers. So that leaves Apple with two choices:
1) Create a new variant of Mac OS X designed around touch interaction 2) Use the one they already created
Apple chose option 2. This not only makes it simpler for Apple to manage, but it also gives developers for the platform a relatively easy way to create applications for both iPad and iPhone/iPod Touch.
As with the iPod touch/iPhone if you are accessing Facebook and want to look up a contact, you have to quit safari and start the address book app, then to go back you have to start up safari again and wait for it to load facebook AGAIN.
1) Safari stays active in the background.
2) Use the Facebook app.
[I]t amazes me that Apple has dumbed down people's expectations of what computers are to such a degree that almost everyone on slashdot celebrates their crappiness instead of condemning it.
It amazes me that Windows and Linux have dumbed down peoples' expectations of what user interaction is to such a degree that most everyone on Slashdot celebrates shitty UI instead of condemning it.
And you fall back to the "just go somewhere else" while market pressures are clearly pointing for "somewhere else" to become marginalized and disappear.
Really? Apple has no competitors in the media player market? Apple has no competitors in the smartphone market?
If Apple's satisfactory-to-you competitors are becoming marginalized and disappearing, maybe it's because an insufficient number of people share your values to justify the costs of producing the products you desire, which is entirely too bad for you.
You don't have the right to have everything you want in life. You either make compromises or do without. How the fuck old are you, anyway?
Bravo on your cognitive dissidence and doublethink. Big Brother would be proud.
I'm sure your Che-shirt-wearing friends in #debian are proud of your dedication to your values.
Keep in mind, however, that they're your values and you don't get to dictate them to others.
If the corporation's products are pervasive to the point of being ubiquitous and market pressure shows no sign of changing(which naturally occurs) you're stuck with the same system you'd imagine a dis-utopian gov't providing.
Well shit, I hope Apple gets some competitors for its mobile platform, then, so they can apply some market pressure.
The iPod's been a "crippled Apple product" for over eight years now. It's the market leader (because a lot of people value user experience over idealism), but, more importantly, you can still buy competing products that you would, I assume consider "open."
You don't like Apple's products. Good for you. Given Apple's financial results, while you're clearly not their target market, they do indeed have customers.
Move on and purchase something else instead of demanding that the market accommodate your desires.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm willing to bet that your company doesn't care so much about your phone so much as they do about their data.
How about a bank? Or maybe a food manufacturer? A law firm?
Take your pick.
That would depend on whether or not I'm telling passers-by that they're schmucks for shopping for food at supermarkets instead of growing their own free food.
How many seats of Flash CS5 do you have to purchase before the per-seat cost falls below $600?
And you're assuming that all of your developers are already proficient in Flash.
This one is actually a valid point. There are indeed other costs, but a keyboard, mouse, and display do not increase costs significantly.
I know plenty about business. You want maximum dollars for minimum effort. Wanting that is fine. But the shit you and the rest of your buddies on elance develop is probably just that--LCD shit.
Nothing. You just don't like it. Too bad.
Instead of trying to find a set of statistics you might like, how about you cherry pick the market you want and share your statistics with me?
I don't like the DMCA either, kid. But let's at least be honest about what it says.
It turns out that it is in fact illegal to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that," among other things, "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." (17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)).
Given Apple's recent history, if Apple thought what the iPhone Dev Team/Cydia is doing was illegal under the DMCA, they'd have acted by now.
You didn't get away with paraphrasing the encyclopedia in 5th grade.
Why did you think you'd get away with paraphrasing Gruber today?
What monopoly? Apple's not even the biggest player in the smartphone market, let alone a monopolist.
Or perhaps you're talking about the "devices that run iPhone OS" monopoly, in which case you're a retard.
Flash CS5 is the only product that comes with the Flash-to-.ipa converter. It retails for $700. The Mac Mini starts at $600. Last I checked, $600 was less than $700.
Let's get a couple of things straightened out:
1) Changing your terms of service does not give you a monopoly in your market.
2) Apple's US smartphone marketshare is 25%--18% less than RIM. How can you have a monopoly in your market if you're not even the largest player?
I'd ask for a refund on whatever it was you spent on your "education."
No, Apple wants to stomp third-party multi-platform SDKs that don't produce a good experience on any platform.
No obfuscation at all. He comes right out and says it. Thoughts on Flash:
Yes.
Apple's not dictating what tools you may or may not use to develop on iPhone OS. Apple's dictating what tools you may use to develop software you wish to distribute through their distribution channel.
I'm sure the Cydia store would have no problem approving Flash-to-.ipa iPhone OS apps.
If you want to use Apple's distribution channel, you have to play by Apple's rules. If you don't like Apple's rules, there's always Android.
I don't know what I'm going to have in five years. Neither do you.
You're extrapolating today's use cases to what will be possible with tomorrow's technology.
Here's a hint for you: Today's use cases won't be around in 2020. I don't know what will be on my desk in 2020, but I can almost guarantee you it won't be a docking station for my mobile phone into which I plug in a monitor and a printer.
I'd submit that the current Android tablet offerings are precisely why HP would have doubts that Android won't scale well to tablets.
Yes.
When I'm in the market for a mobile phone, the first and last thing I look at is what printers it supports.
Don't be a moron.
Apple's not forcing you to use unpatched firmware on your own device.
Apple's not even, at this point, denying you access to the App Store if you've jailbroken your device.
Apple is, however, denying access to the App Store to some people who have written software to jailbreak the iPhone.
Maybe your Exchange administrators have a good reason for not allowing OMA (e.g., corporate security policy). Maybe they don't (e.g., fear of the unknown). Regardless, your beef should be with your Exchange administrators and not with Apple. Microsoft's Exchange team wants MAPI to go away, but the Outlook team is (understandably) scared of what that might mean for them.
I've put more RAM and a larger HD in every Apple notebook I've owned—even the oh-so-magical-to-reassemble original PowerBook G4, so yes, I've worked on one and I know how bad it used to be.
Requiring a T6, which can be found in any hardware or big box store you enjoy, does not make it hard to work in it. And while they don't give you room enough for your a gigantic magnetic multidriver, I've never had difficulty with any of the drivers I have.
Could it be easier to work in a MacBook or MacBook Pro? Yes, if they designed them to be larger in all dimensions. But are they "actively designed to make working in them as hard as possible" as was asserted above? Absolutely not. They're designed to strike a balance between making it somewhat easy for the owner to upgrade RAM and HD and being as thin as possible.
Yeah, the Mac Pros are really a bitch to move around in what with not having to worry about the tangle of ribbon cables.
Also it's really hard to install memory or a hard drive in their new laptops.
Don't be a moron.
It is background processing.
But instead of 10 background tasks monitoring twitter, RSS, AIM, Facebook, etc., there's just one task.
And chances are it's not killing the battery by chewing 10% CPU all the time for no reason just because the guy who wrote it doesn't know what Instruments is or how to use it.
Why hide it from the user when you can eliminate it as a concern instead?
Or maybe application developers can follow Apple's guidelines and write applications that retain state and launch quickly.
Apple did, in fact, make a multi-touch computer. It's called the iPad.
Simply slapping a multi-touch screen on a MacBook—which is what it seems a lot of people think Apple should have done—would have been a huge, huge mistake. Touch is worthless without software designed to be touched.
Software designed for Windows, Mac OS, KDE, Gnome, etc. is intended to be used with a keyboard and mouse as primary input devices. There simply isn't a way to create a good experience using these applications when you replace the keyboard and mouse with an intermittent on-screen keyboard and fingers. So that leaves Apple with two choices:
1) Create a new variant of Mac OS X designed around touch interaction
2) Use the one they already created
Apple chose option 2. This not only makes it simpler for Apple to manage, but it also gives developers for the platform a relatively easy way to create applications for both iPad and iPhone/iPod Touch.
1) Safari stays active in the background.
2) Use the Facebook app.
It amazes me that Windows and Linux have dumbed down peoples' expectations of what user interaction is to such a degree that most everyone on Slashdot celebrates shitty UI instead of condemning it.
Really? Apple has no competitors in the media player market? Apple has no competitors in the smartphone market?
If Apple's satisfactory-to-you competitors are becoming marginalized and disappearing, maybe it's because an insufficient number of people share your values to justify the costs of producing the products you desire, which is entirely too bad for you.
You don't have the right to have everything you want in life. You either make compromises or do without. How the fuck old are you, anyway?
I'm sure your Che-shirt-wearing friends in #debian are proud of your dedication to your values.
Keep in mind, however, that they're your values and you don't get to dictate them to others.
If the corporation's products are pervasive to the point of being ubiquitous and market pressure shows no sign of changing(which naturally occurs) you're stuck with the same system you'd imagine a dis-utopian gov't providing.
Well shit, I hope Apple gets some competitors for its mobile platform, then, so they can apply some market pressure.
The iPod's been a "crippled Apple product" for over eight years now. It's the market leader (because a lot of people value user experience over idealism), but, more importantly, you can still buy competing products that you would, I assume consider "open."
You don't like Apple's products. Good for you. Given Apple's financial results, while you're clearly not their target market, they do indeed have customers.
Move on and purchase something else instead of demanding that the market accommodate your desires.