Now you're just being silly. "Professional developers will not take their platform seriously until they stop doing that." - this is an opinion, not a fact. It's also far from true. There are many professional developers taking the platform seriously with successful apps.
As much as you want it to be true to support your bias, I'm afraid it's just not so.
Oh I'm not, just handwaving them away. However, you have to consider it from both sides - you can't just start proclaiming how "Android is overtaking iPhone!!!" and then show those single quarter results while neglecting to mention two very salient points: that the iPhone 4 is coming out very soon, so iPhone 3GS sales have dropped off, and that Verizon was running a 2 for 1 deal on Android handsets to boost sales.
Of course the handsets are there - no one is waving them away, but if the crux of an argument is about how Android is overtaking iPhone as a target for mobile development, and in installed users, both of those things are important considerations.
it's not hard to understand at all, but the key thing is that the vast, vast majority of apps are approved, and ignoring a potential 50+ million user base because a small minority of apps get rejected (and you can resubmit for approval) is just not good business sense.
I'm not sure what part of "maybe get rejected so DON'T EVEN TRY" vs "50 million potential customers can buy my app" is hard to understand.
Ah, yes, the padded numbers from the 2 for 1 Verizon promotion, and the slump in numbers because the iPhone 4 release is very soon...
Numbers for 1 quarter don't tell the whole picture, although I am glad Android is doing well - competition is good for all.
This has come up in discussion before - 95% of the apps submitted to the store get approved, and any company that is serious about making a living from mobile development is *crazy* to ignore a 100 million user base just because they think it might possibly cost them a little bit extra in development. If your company cannot afford to "take the risk" (ie, developing an iPhone app that is rejected would cause the company to fold) then it has bigger issues than a potentially "inconsistent" company.
"Wasting their time" developing for an app that (for conservative estimates, ignoring older phones), is available to 50 million customers... right.
If you are serious about development in the mobile market you are crazy to ignore the iPhone - the user base is enormous, the app store is centralised and it continues to grow.
It would be the equivalent of being a scissors manufacturer, or a can opener maker and not making a left handed version for the cost of development. Even if the left handed population is small, relative to the whole (10% approx), it is still a market that is worth developing for. The iPhone is a significantly larger portion of the smartphone market than 10%. Ignoring it because you are worried about a serious minority of app rejections is just not good business sense.
By all means, develop for Android (especially with the rise in handsets and users - it's a clear emerging market), but any sensible business will also be "risking" iPhone development.
You're ignoring a 100 million installed base because you're worried about losing development resources if you do something against the terms of the dev agreement?
I guess your company's website only works in IE too, right?
MAC make make up - I'm not surprised that Win 7 with Office 2010 is ahead of a tube of lipstick and concealer.
The interesting thing about the Macbook, is that you can drop Win 7 on it in the time it takes to install. You can put Linux on there too if you like.
Incidentally, what specifically does Office 2010 bring to the table over and above the earlier versions? I am aware that Office for Mac 2008 is missing macro support, but that is coming back in the new version, and it is still present in the earlier version, which I still use if I need a macro alongside the 2008 version (which was kindly gifted to me).
What about windows versions? What makes Office 2010 on windows better than Office 2007 or 2003 or any other version - what is new and gamechanging that puts it "way ahead" - I'm actually curious. Other than changing to that stupid ribbon, not much really changes between versions it seems.
That link talks about the data-revenue agreement, which the GP talked about in the post you are quoting.
Here, I'll quote it since you seem to have just skipped over it entirely:
Jobs demanded a percentage of iPhone data revenues in return for exclusivity, to help offset lost opportunities with other carriers. This was a no-brainer for AT&T. If iPhone failed, no big deal, they sell a hell of a lot of different devices, and if only a tiny fraction of their customers used the iPhone, giving Apple a cut of iPhone data revenues would have a minimal impact on their bottom line.
The link you posted talks about this very deal.
Your original post may not be technically factually incorrect - while Apple do receive a percentage of revenue from the data plan, your opinions about Apple's motives are not facts. They may well be true (I suspect not, but then I didn't think Jacko would live as long as he did with nightly injections of propofol in a non-clinical setting), but you cannot claim it is factually correct. It's just not, unless you have someone on the board of directors on camera saying those words.
This is what I never understood. Adobe makes a *huge fuss* trying to distract people with the hardware acceleration requirement, but other third party software on Mac has been getting along just fine without it.
There's no good reason that XBMC can play the HD streams from BBC iPlayer on my Mac with no issues and low/medium CPU use while the flash plugin itself is hitting the stops with max CPU use, and dropped frames. They are both pulling the same source down from the server. What makes XBMC so much better? It's not even like the Mac version of XBMC is their primary platform! I'm grateful there are Mac builds, of course, but their main focus is on the Linux version. (On a separate note, I am also saddened that the BBC added swf verification to their streams, breaking XBMC compatibility).
Adobe are just waving their hands and trying to distract from the fact that their Mac version of flash is really, really crappy because they just don't care, or they are stuck with legacy code... or who knows why? Even looking at pure software rendering of content (and not even video), there are marked differences between the Windows and the Mac version.
Not that I disagree with your point in general, but MiniDisc was never a replacement for CD, even though some marketing people tried to make it - what it really replaced was cassette tapes; a role that it excelled at, and continues to do so. MD is still used *heavily* in the professional area, especially in radio.
MD was awesome, it's serial copy management was not, but Sony eventually dropped that.
No, but it's not as obtrusive as you might think, but it may put some people off. The different pages of apps on your home screens slide sideways when you swipe your finger, but they move as fast as your finger does; so if you do a demo you can do it slowly. If you are using the phone day to day you swipe without thinking and it happens rapidly, but enough that you can see what it is doing (better feedback than just instantly blinking to the next page).
The zoom happens when you start an app, and this is really there to cover the load time I think. On my 3G some of the bigger apps are still loading after the zoom finishes.
From using it day to day there's no extra animation beyond UI feedback - for example, icons don't swirl around like some fancy vortex when you press them just to look pretty. Every animation is specific to give you feedback on your input. That's the smoothness - the rate at which a list scrolls is entirely down to you. A couple of quick flicks and it whizzes past but stops instantly if you touch your finger down again.
It is quite possible to take Christians seriously and still make jokes about them. Some of the most devout Christians I know make jokes about their faith and God all the time.
One of the defining human characteristics is being able to laugh at yourself.
I make similar jokes about Apple users, Linux users, Football fans, people who drink Mountain Dew, atheists, rock fans, sci fi nerds, people who watch reality TV...
Humour is part of human character. You appear to be missing yours. Perhaps you should pray for it to return.
They might come as a bundled package that sits in memory on your phone, that is refreshed when you sync with iTunes. There's nothing to say one way or the other whether they will be downloaded via the cellular network.
It is an open standard, and interoperable with anyone who conforms to the spec. You need a licence to ship a decoder and an encoder due to the patents.
It is not proprietary.
It is if Linux is Unix though, I suppose. Or if copyright infringement is theft, or Android is a cellphone.
That might be true if the app store was a cash cow: it isn't.
Of course they are interested in profits - they are a business. This does not mean they are not also interested in promoting open standards.
The Microsoft HTML5 demos also send Webkit-specific CSS to Safari when you load the demos, so they are either well known CSS calls that exist to plug a hole in some implementation that Webkit is doing (ie, it may still be a work in progress) or MS also wants to make Safari look good with HTML5.
If Gizmodo wants to go, they can buy a ticket. No one is stopping them.
You really expect Apple to give them a ticket for free (which is what this story is about - and it's not even a confirmed denial, Apple just hasn't go back to them, so it;s either ignoring or busy etc, not a confirmed no) after the entire iPhone prototype fiasco?
Mm.
Remind me to invite the guy who stole my last car to my party celebrating the purchase of my new car so he can drink my beer and eat my food all at my expense.
Funnily enough, Microsoft's HTML5 test pages also deliver Webkit-specific CSS to Safari in their demos - the border demo shows it up the best.
I'd have expected MS to not bother and just serve the same CSS it gives to IE9 and let the demo break in Safari (it works just fine), unless it is also serving this CSS to IE9 too?
So, the question is - why is there a specific webkit CSS extension for borders? It seems like a pretty basic part of the spec that shouldn't really call for anything special, unless there is something about the way Webkit renders those elements that necessitated a special extension.
And of course, you're right - it's not "standard", but we have to wait for the finalised standard before we actually see if that specific selector remains. It might be a stopgap measure.
The last thing we really need is "code this for x, y, z browsers, then spend time tweaking it to work in a and b browsers".
Slashdot Mirror
Now you're just being silly. "Professional developers will not take their platform seriously until they stop doing that." - this is an opinion, not a fact. It's also far from true. There are many professional developers taking the platform seriously with successful apps.
As much as you want it to be true to support your bias, I'm afraid it's just not so.
Oh I'm not, just handwaving them away. However, you have to consider it from both sides - you can't just start proclaiming how "Android is overtaking iPhone!!!" and then show those single quarter results while neglecting to mention two very salient points: that the iPhone 4 is coming out very soon, so iPhone 3GS sales have dropped off, and that Verizon was running a 2 for 1 deal on Android handsets to boost sales.
Of course the handsets are there - no one is waving them away, but if the crux of an argument is about how Android is overtaking iPhone as a target for mobile development, and in installed users, both of those things are important considerations.
it's not hard to understand at all, but the key thing is that the vast, vast majority of apps are approved, and ignoring a potential 50+ million user base because a small minority of apps get rejected (and you can resubmit for approval) is just not good business sense.
I'm not sure what part of "maybe get rejected so DON'T EVEN TRY" vs "50 million potential customers can buy my app" is hard to understand.
Ah, yes, the padded numbers from the 2 for 1 Verizon promotion, and the slump in numbers because the iPhone 4 release is very soon...
Numbers for 1 quarter don't tell the whole picture, although I am glad Android is doing well - competition is good for all.
This has come up in discussion before - 95% of the apps submitted to the store get approved, and any company that is serious about making a living from mobile development is *crazy* to ignore a 100 million user base just because they think it might possibly cost them a little bit extra in development. If your company cannot afford to "take the risk" (ie, developing an iPhone app that is rejected would cause the company to fold) then it has bigger issues than a potentially "inconsistent" company.
"Wasting their time" developing for an app that (for conservative estimates, ignoring older phones), is available to 50 million customers... right.
If you are serious about development in the mobile market you are crazy to ignore the iPhone - the user base is enormous, the app store is centralised and it continues to grow.
It would be the equivalent of being a scissors manufacturer, or a can opener maker and not making a left handed version for the cost of development. Even if the left handed population is small, relative to the whole (10% approx), it is still a market that is worth developing for. The iPhone is a significantly larger portion of the smartphone market than 10%. Ignoring it because you are worried about a serious minority of app rejections is just not good business sense.
By all means, develop for Android (especially with the rise in handsets and users - it's a clear emerging market), but any sensible business will also be "risking" iPhone development.
You're ignoring a 100 million installed base because you're worried about losing development resources if you do something against the terms of the dev agreement?
I guess your company's website only works in IE too, right?
MAC make make up - I'm not surprised that Win 7 with Office 2010 is ahead of a tube of lipstick and concealer.
The interesting thing about the Macbook, is that you can drop Win 7 on it in the time it takes to install. You can put Linux on there too if you like.
Incidentally, what specifically does Office 2010 bring to the table over and above the earlier versions? I am aware that Office for Mac 2008 is missing macro support, but that is coming back in the new version, and it is still present in the earlier version, which I still use if I need a macro alongside the 2008 version (which was kindly gifted to me).
What about windows versions? What makes Office 2010 on windows better than Office 2007 or 2003 or any other version - what is new and gamechanging that puts it "way ahead" - I'm actually curious. Other than changing to that stupid ribbon, not much really changes between versions it seems.
That link talks about the data-revenue agreement, which the GP talked about in the post you are quoting.
Here, I'll quote it since you seem to have just skipped over it entirely:
Jobs demanded a percentage of iPhone data revenues in return for exclusivity, to help offset lost opportunities with other carriers. This was a no-brainer for AT&T. If iPhone failed, no big deal, they sell a hell of a lot of different devices, and if only a tiny fraction of their customers used the iPhone, giving Apple a cut of iPhone data revenues would have a minimal impact on their bottom line.
The link you posted talks about this very deal.
Your original post may not be technically factually incorrect - while Apple do receive a percentage of revenue from the data plan, your opinions about Apple's motives are not facts. They may well be true (I suspect not, but then I didn't think Jacko would live as long as he did with nightly injections of propofol in a non-clinical setting), but you cannot claim it is factually correct. It's just not, unless you have someone on the board of directors on camera saying those words.
This is what I never understood. Adobe makes a *huge fuss* trying to distract people with the hardware acceleration requirement, but other third party software on Mac has been getting along just fine without it.
There's no good reason that XBMC can play the HD streams from BBC iPlayer on my Mac with no issues and low/medium CPU use while the flash plugin itself is hitting the stops with max CPU use, and dropped frames. They are both pulling the same source down from the server. What makes XBMC so much better? It's not even like the Mac version of XBMC is their primary platform! I'm grateful there are Mac builds, of course, but their main focus is on the Linux version. (On a separate note, I am also saddened that the BBC added swf verification to their streams, breaking XBMC compatibility).
Adobe are just waving their hands and trying to distract from the fact that their Mac version of flash is really, really crappy because they just don't care, or they are stuck with legacy code... or who knows why? Even looking at pure software rendering of content (and not even video), there are marked differences between the Windows and the Mac version.
Not that I disagree with your point in general, but MiniDisc was never a replacement for CD, even though some marketing people tried to make it - what it really replaced was cassette tapes; a role that it excelled at, and continues to do so. MD is still used *heavily* in the professional area, especially in radio.
MD was awesome, it's serial copy management was not, but Sony eventually dropped that.
If it's C++ then it's not in violation of any developer rules/licences.
No, but it's not as obtrusive as you might think, but it may put some people off. The different pages of apps on your home screens slide sideways when you swipe your finger, but they move as fast as your finger does; so if you do a demo you can do it slowly. If you are using the phone day to day you swipe without thinking and it happens rapidly, but enough that you can see what it is doing (better feedback than just instantly blinking to the next page).
The zoom happens when you start an app, and this is really there to cover the load time I think. On my 3G some of the bigger apps are still loading after the zoom finishes.
From using it day to day there's no extra animation beyond UI feedback - for example, icons don't swirl around like some fancy vortex when you press them just to look pretty. Every animation is specific to give you feedback on your input. That's the smoothness - the rate at which a list scrolls is entirely down to you. A couple of quick flicks and it whizzes past but stops instantly if you touch your finger down again.
It is quite possible to take Christians seriously and still make jokes about them. Some of the most devout Christians I know make jokes about their faith and God all the time.
One of the defining human characteristics is being able to laugh at yourself.
I make similar jokes about Apple users, Linux users, Football fans, people who drink Mountain Dew, atheists, rock fans, sci fi nerds, people who watch reality TV...
Humour is part of human character. You appear to be missing yours. Perhaps you should pray for it to return.
if (poster == HUMOURLESS) then fuddyduddyresponse();
To be "Fair and Balanced" (tm), I'll throw in "I asked Obama for change and he gave me a quarter, a nickel and two pennies".
They might come as a bundled package that sits in memory on your phone, that is refreshed when you sync with iTunes. There's nothing to say one way or the other whether they will be downloaded via the cellular network.
This is Texas - God is their backup solution.
Every night they pray for no hardware failures.
It is an open standard, and interoperable with anyone who conforms to the spec. You need a licence to ship a decoder and an encoder due to the patents.
It is not proprietary.
It is if Linux is Unix though, I suppose. Or if copyright infringement is theft, or Android is a cellphone.
Which is not the same thing.
But it's ok, because copyright infringement is theft, right?
H.264 is not proprietary.
Bejeweled 2 was a flash game too, and that's been a native app on the iPhone for years. It even connects to facebook.
Why "rip it to iTunes" - just drop the file into iTunes, then connect the iPhone via USB and press "sync".
Why did you need to rip it?
The point is not the methods, but the formats. You don;t like iTunes any more? No problem, you can take your music with you to another app.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_iPod_managers#iPhone_.26_iPod_Touch_compatibility
Claims Amarok works with iPhone and iPod Touch with all firmwares up to 3.1.
Same for gtkpod, Media Monkey and Rhythmbox.
You mean like Amarok?
Or Rhythmbox.
Or gtkpod?
That might be true if the app store was a cash cow: it isn't.
Of course they are interested in profits - they are a business. This does not mean they are not also interested in promoting open standards.
The Microsoft HTML5 demos also send Webkit-specific CSS to Safari when you load the demos, so they are either well known CSS calls that exist to plug a hole in some implementation that Webkit is doing (ie, it may still be a work in progress) or MS also wants to make Safari look good with HTML5.
If Gizmodo wants to go, they can buy a ticket. No one is stopping them.
You really expect Apple to give them a ticket for free (which is what this story is about - and it's not even a confirmed denial, Apple just hasn't go back to them, so it;s either ignoring or busy etc, not a confirmed no) after the entire iPhone prototype fiasco?
Mm.
Remind me to invite the guy who stole my last car to my party celebrating the purchase of my new car so he can drink my beer and eat my food all at my expense.
Funnily enough, Microsoft's HTML5 test pages also deliver Webkit-specific CSS to Safari in their demos - the border demo shows it up the best.
I'd have expected MS to not bother and just serve the same CSS it gives to IE9 and let the demo break in Safari (it works just fine), unless it is also serving this CSS to IE9 too?
So, the question is - why is there a specific webkit CSS extension for borders? It seems like a pretty basic part of the spec that shouldn't really call for anything special, unless there is something about the way Webkit renders those elements that necessitated a special extension.
And of course, you're right - it's not "standard", but we have to wait for the finalised standard before we actually see if that specific selector remains. It might be a stopgap measure.
The last thing we really need is "code this for x, y, z browsers, then spend time tweaking it to work in a and b browsers".