Or maybe Microsoft wants to make Flash a Windows 7 thing only... Let it sit side-by-side with Silverlight and let developers choose which plugin to use. Either way, it takes away Apples future ability to ever have Flash, and it robs Flash from Android.
Ballmer only knows how to get marketshare by buying it, so he might be thinking that Flash developers, while enraged at the lack of support on Android, would stick with their development tools anyway.
Apple made inroads in music because they did these things: 1. They allowed you thousands of songs in your pocket. What you want, when you want it. 2. They made it easy to find those songs (iTunes). 3. They got rid of commercials, DJs, etc. 4. They augmented music with other forms of media (Podcasts, Audiobooks). 5. You could take your existing CDs and rip them, thus ditching physical media altogether.
TV is entirely different because of these things: 1. TV already has a TV guide, so it's fairly easy to find what you want (I'm talking online TV guide, not the printed version). 2. People typically don't care about carrying TV shows around in their pockets (except for travelers). 3. People are OK with TV commercials -- in fact it's an art form, like during the Superbowl. 4. People don't necessarily want to "own" TV shows -- they watch them once, except for their all-time favorites. 5. Why rip a DVD that you own? That's still a very data-dense storage medium to this day. 6. They already have on-demand TV, which is just like iTunes rentals.
So the cable subscription model doesn't seem like it's going anywhere anytime soon. For that to happen, we need to see these things:
A. Network identities need to be torn down. Who cares if a show was produced by NBC, SyFy, FOX, or BET? The content should stand on its own, period. B. Targeted marketing needs to improve. Right now, if you hit the 7pm-10pm slot on FOX, you pretty much know your demographic. Once shows are downloaded willy-nilly, the (optional) ads will need to be targeted. This could be a big win for everyone, and we're getting there. C. How can studios push their "New fall lineup"? This is crucial, because a show lives and dies based on how it is positioned against other shows right now.
Just some thoughts.... Many more things would need to change, but these are off the top of my head.
They bought McAfee so they can keep Dell away from
on
Intel Buys McAfee
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Instead of giving Dell cash to stay away from AMD (which is frowned upon), they will give away McAfee licenses. It's that simple.
He also wanted it to be truly object-oriented and dynamic in every sense. Your comment therefore has some innaccuracies / unfairness to it:
"The Obj-C creator basically didn't know how to code linker-loader address binding"
This is by design. It allows dynamic messaging. You can even, for example, send a message to nil and everything is fine.
"He also didn't know about name mangling"
Again, only something you need in a statically linked object-inheritance style language like C++.
"method names and args are explicitly named, so you end up with arg named calling methods like [obj method:arg1 count:count]"
Again, by design. Named arguments makes Objective-C one of the best languages for code readability. You don't have to wonder what the arguments are!
"For adding properties to a class you have enter the same info in triplicate"
Good point -- this is frustrating even in ObjC-2.0. They should get rid of @synthesize and do it automatically.
"the creator didn't understand the value of name space partitioning in OOP"
Dr Cox certainly understood. He just wanted to keep things as close to "pure" C as possible, and had a different way of partitioning spaces -- use 2 letter codes. This is primitive but surprisingly effective, and why all Cocoa objects begin with NS. Think of all the typing this saves, and you never have to wonder what namespace context you're in.
I won't be popular for saying this, but here goes: Apple is actually trying to force a return to sanity. For years now, we have all been swallowing the "virtual machine" Kool-aid, watching with baited breath as very talented engineers put incredible technologies into the VMs (garbage collection, trace JITs, etc). All so that the code runs ALMOST as fast as native code* and has features that have been in other libraries/languages for years. Please don't think that I don't value the changes to the languages and libraries -- C# and Java are nice, and I'm glad that they finally got categories (which was in Objective-C 15 years ago, and before that Smalltalk). Still waiting on delegates;-)
My point is this: As a developer, I understand the frustration with having to maintain a codebase across each platform, and thus I see the value of Flash /.NET / Java (and for that matter, HTML / JavaScript). But does anyone remember when Java looked like absolute crap (AWT) on most platforms? The marketing hype was just overwhelmingly inaccurate. And I can give you examples to this day of where a Java program won't run on a certain platform -- the "write one run anywhere" promise is NOT true. And Steve is correct -- Flash crashes ALL the time on my Windows and Mac boxes.
So, I think what Steve is trying to do is to say, "Look, I know this will piss of many people to the point where you won't develop for the iPhone OS 4.0 platform, but that's OK and we understand. For those of you who remain, you will have immediate access to all of the coolest new features and your stuff will run fast because its not emulated".
Have any of you naysayers even looked at the APIs in Cocoa that would NOT be available if you used Flash /.NET / other? CoreAnimation, CoreAudio, CoreData, etc? Or QuartzComposer? (And yes I know about LINQ on.NET)
Apple is being very smart here because they are gambling that with the market share that they have in the mobile market, developers will huff and puff but they will eventually learn Objective-C / C++ and Cocoa. If it's the APPS that make the PLATFORM, then its the API that makes the APPS.
All of this being said -- and this is a critical point -- Apple had better hurry up and flesh out their development tools so that they are a viable alternative to the things you can do in Visual Studio and Adobe CS5 pro. They have a ways to go there.
* All of you locality-of-reference and usage-pattern VM people, calm down: If you can show me a Java / CLR program that runs as fast as native then I will show you a poorly written native program. Flame off.
StarBlazers!!!! Come on, this would be AWESOME. I liked this show far more than RoboTech and I hear that's getting the big-scren treatment... Toby MacGuire, etc.
I am no Erlang expert, but isn't it supposed to be a language that is inherently parallel, thus allowing programs to "automatically" take advantage of multi-core systems?
MSFT is only buying YHOO for their marketshare and perhaps more importantly their brand and reputation. Microsoft has a horrible rep; even if Live Search were technologically "better", consumers still have lingering memories of Microsoft's shifty tactics and attempts to force standards on the online community. This, combines with Google's reputation for "doing no evil" are what has kept them out of search. Criminy, people even prefer the Google Desktop Search to Microsoft's own product on their own OS!
This is NOT about Google being better technologically; it's about feeling comfortable with Google and not feeling comfortable with Microsoft. It's reputation.
If this deal goes through, Microsoft will basically put their own tech underneath the Yahoo domain name (Yahoo IT people, you might want to start looking for new jobs). They are so arrogant about their technology and the "built by Microsoft" mantra.
Don't get me wrong; I like competition and I certainly think this deal would keep Google on its toes. But let's see through the veil and realize what's really going on. Microsoft has no friends and they are trying to buy Yahoo's (somewhat) friendly brand as well as their current marketshare.
Not sure if the following belongs in a MS- and C++ article on parallel programming, and also not wanting to sound like a fanboy, but there is some interesting stuff going on in this area in the OS X / Cocoa camp. A nice introduction can be found on Apple's developer website as well as the marketing literature for Leopard.
I'm sure that the Java folks and.Net folks have something also, but this is worth noting for the sake of completeness.
I've seen a lot of well thought-out comments on how this development will not displace Office in the enterprise mainly for these reasons: 1. Reliability of access (networking outages compromise this) 2. Privacy of data
What would prevent Google from licensing this application to businesses as something that can be run on local web-servers? Just because it runs in a web browser (aka VT240 terminal for those who think history is repeating itself) does not mean that it must run on a public network.
I think Google's plan is brilliant and that they will be making some serious inroads into groupware in the future... They already have pieces of the technology in place (mail/messaging, spreadsheet, search, and soon I am sure some type of word processor). They will not create their own browser -- why do this when you can leverage the ones already out there and simly create toolbars and plugins? Google has always been about choice and they will not change that aspect of their business plan.
In the browser wars, the paradigm shift was from the desktop to the web-browser, which was just a container for web-based content.
The new container is the media player, folks! MS doesn't really care if you're using FireFox as long as it's Windows Media Player delivering rich content -- including advertising. The battle now is between Flash, Quicktime, Media Player, etc...
This is not a magnanimous move by Microsoft, this is a no-nonsense strategy to make sure that Media Player is the container no matter what browser you're using.
Wait, this was one of the lyrics sung by the Ewoks in the Return of the Jedi.... Remember the song at the end? "Yub Nub.... Da dum de doo" or something
The innovative company that Sun once was is no more. They were asleep while the world changed, and now they are playing catch-up. They are the next Novell.
I wish them the best of luck (although I can't stand McNealy), because open standards are good for everyone, and anything that challenges the MS monopoly is good.
In the meantime I'll stick with OS X.... because it works.
"Linux developers have finally succeeded in creating a "self-forking" Linux distribution. Approximately every 3-8 months, the code will spontaneously fork into a new distribution, this creating more choices for users of Linux. This, apparently, has been the goal of Linux all along."
----
Seriously, folks, does the world need another Linux distro? Possibly I am not well-versed enough in Linux internals to understand how this variant is *truly* unique... but I thought that the whole friggin' point of Linux is that you have the source code and some fancy compile-time config params, so you can basically include/exclude any component that you want!!!!? This means you can create a light, embedded version... or a full-blown server. All from the same source code.
What is it with the Penguin-clan and all of their distributions? Quit diluting the value of a great idea, people. Linux is a fantastic thing, but if you would just take the time to focus on one, two, or even three distros then things would move forward a lot faster.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the hardware allow for this? Also, won't the government have public specifications that would expose this possibility?
Or maybe Microsoft wants to make Flash a Windows 7 thing only... Let it sit side-by-side with Silverlight and let developers choose which plugin to use. Either way, it takes away Apples future ability to ever have Flash, and it robs Flash from Android.
Ballmer only knows how to get marketshare by buying it, so he might be thinking that Flash developers, while enraged at the lack of support on Android, would stick with their development tools anyway.
Apple made inroads in music because they did these things:
1. They allowed you thousands of songs in your pocket. What you want, when you want it.
2. They made it easy to find those songs (iTunes).
3. They got rid of commercials, DJs, etc.
4. They augmented music with other forms of media (Podcasts, Audiobooks).
5. You could take your existing CDs and rip them, thus ditching physical media altogether.
TV is entirely different because of these things:
1. TV already has a TV guide, so it's fairly easy to find what you want (I'm talking online TV guide, not the printed version).
2. People typically don't care about carrying TV shows around in their pockets (except for travelers).
3. People are OK with TV commercials -- in fact it's an art form, like during the Superbowl.
4. People don't necessarily want to "own" TV shows -- they watch them once, except for their all-time favorites.
5. Why rip a DVD that you own? That's still a very data-dense storage medium to this day.
6. They already have on-demand TV, which is just like iTunes rentals.
So the cable subscription model doesn't seem like it's going anywhere anytime soon. For that to happen, we need to see these things:
A. Network identities need to be torn down. Who cares if a show was produced by NBC, SyFy, FOX, or BET? The content should stand on its own, period.
B. Targeted marketing needs to improve. Right now, if you hit the 7pm-10pm slot on FOX, you pretty much know your demographic. Once shows are downloaded willy-nilly, the (optional) ads will need to be targeted. This could be a big win for everyone, and we're getting there.
C. How can studios push their "New fall lineup"? This is crucial, because a show lives and dies based on how it is positioned against other shows right now.
Just some thoughts.... Many more things would need to change, but these are off the top of my head.
Instead of giving Dell cash to stay away from AMD (which is frowned upon), they will give away McAfee licenses. It's that simple.
I understand why you might think this way, but realize that the language was created by a pretty smart guy -- Dr. Brad Cox -- and he had one main goal in mind: Be a strict superset of C (not even C++ does this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibility_of_C_and_C%2B%2B#Constructs_valid_in_C_but_not_C.2B.2B)
He also wanted it to be truly object-oriented and dynamic in every sense. Your comment therefore has some innaccuracies / unfairness to it:
"The Obj-C creator basically didn't know how to code linker-loader address binding"
This is by design. It allows dynamic messaging. You can even, for example, send a message to nil and everything is fine.
"He also didn't know about name mangling"
Again, only something you need in a statically linked object-inheritance style language like C++.
"method names and args are explicitly named, so you end up with arg named calling methods like [obj method:arg1 count:count]"
Again, by design. Named arguments makes Objective-C one of the best languages for code readability. You don't have to wonder what the arguments are!
"For adding properties to a class you have enter the same info in triplicate"
Good point -- this is frustrating even in ObjC-2.0. They should get rid of @synthesize and do it automatically.
"the creator didn't understand the value of name space partitioning in OOP"
Dr Cox certainly understood. He just wanted to keep things as close to "pure" C as possible, and had a different way of partitioning spaces -- use 2 letter codes. This is primitive but surprisingly effective, and why all Cocoa objects begin with NS. Think of all the typing this saves, and you never have to wonder what namespace context you're in.
"mind-numbing hyper-verbosity"
I agree that the Cocoa library objects / methods are verbose, but this is a GOOD thing. Also, other more recent languages do the same with there libraries, for example: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system(v=VS.100).aspx
"While the Xcode editor is doing heoric efforts in trying to guess what you meant "
I agree 100% with you -- Code completion in XCode needs to improve
"you still end up doing lots of cut & paste of the Cocoa names"
100% agreed -- XCode needs to have something better than their macro insertion stuff to save me a lot of typing.
I won't be popular for saying this, but here goes: Apple is actually trying to force a return to sanity. For years now, we have all been swallowing the "virtual machine" Kool-aid, watching with baited breath as very talented engineers put incredible technologies into the VMs (garbage collection, trace JITs, etc). All so that the code runs ALMOST as fast as native code* and has features that have been in other libraries/languages for years. Please don't think that I don't value the changes to the languages and libraries -- C# and Java are nice, and I'm glad that they finally got categories (which was in Objective-C 15 years ago, and before that Smalltalk). Still waiting on delegates ;-)
My point is this: As a developer, I understand the frustration with having to maintain a codebase across each platform, and thus I see the value of Flash / .NET / Java (and for that matter, HTML / JavaScript). But does anyone remember when Java looked like absolute crap (AWT) on most platforms? The marketing hype was just overwhelmingly inaccurate. And I can give you examples to this day of where a Java program won't run on a certain platform -- the "write one run anywhere" promise is NOT true. And Steve is correct -- Flash crashes ALL the time on my Windows and Mac boxes.
So, I think what Steve is trying to do is to say, "Look, I know this will piss of many people to the point where you won't develop for the iPhone OS 4.0 platform, but that's OK and we understand. For those of you who remain, you will have immediate access to all of the coolest new features and your stuff will run fast because its not emulated".
Have any of you naysayers even looked at the APIs in Cocoa that would NOT be available if you used Flash / .NET / other? CoreAnimation, CoreAudio, CoreData, etc? Or QuartzComposer? (And yes I know about LINQ on .NET)
Apple is being very smart here because they are gambling that with the market share that they have in the mobile market, developers will huff and puff but they will eventually learn Objective-C / C++ and Cocoa. If it's the APPS that make the PLATFORM, then its the API that makes the APPS.
All of this being said -- and this is a critical point -- Apple had better hurry up and flesh out their development tools so that they are a viable alternative to the things you can do in Visual Studio and Adobe CS5 pro. They have a ways to go there.
* All of you locality-of-reference and usage-pattern VM people, calm down: If you can show me a Java / CLR program that runs as fast as native then I will show you a poorly written native program. Flame off.
StarBlazers!!!! Come on, this would be AWESOME. I liked this show far more than RoboTech and I hear that's getting the big-scren treatment... Toby MacGuire, etc.
I am no Erlang expert, but isn't it supposed to be a language that is inherently parallel, thus allowing programs to "automatically" take advantage of multi-core systems?
MSFT is only buying YHOO for their marketshare and perhaps more importantly their brand and reputation. Microsoft has a horrible rep; even if Live Search were technologically "better", consumers still have lingering memories of Microsoft's shifty tactics and attempts to force standards on the online community. This, combines with Google's reputation for "doing no evil" are what has kept them out of search. Criminy, people even prefer the Google Desktop Search to Microsoft's own product on their own OS! This is NOT about Google being better technologically; it's about feeling comfortable with Google and not feeling comfortable with Microsoft. It's reputation. If this deal goes through, Microsoft will basically put their own tech underneath the Yahoo domain name (Yahoo IT people, you might want to start looking for new jobs). They are so arrogant about their technology and the "built by Microsoft" mantra. Don't get me wrong; I like competition and I certainly think this deal would keep Google on its toes. But let's see through the veil and realize what's really going on. Microsoft has no friends and they are trying to buy Yahoo's (somewhat) friendly brand as well as their current marketshare.
Not sure if the following belongs in a MS- and C++ article on parallel programming, and also not wanting to sound like a fanboy, but there is some interesting stuff going on in this area in the OS X / Cocoa camp. A nice introduction can be found on Apple's developer website as well as the marketing literature for Leopard. I'm sure that the Java folks and .Net folks have something also, but this is worth noting for the sake of completeness.
I've seen a lot of well thought-out comments on how this development will not displace Office in the enterprise mainly for these reasons:
1. Reliability of access (networking outages compromise this)
2. Privacy of data
What would prevent Google from licensing this application to businesses as something that can be run on local web-servers? Just because it runs in a web browser (aka VT240 terminal for those who think history is repeating itself) does not mean that it must run on a public network.
I think Google's plan is brilliant and that they will be making some serious inroads into groupware in the future... They already have pieces of the technology in place (mail/messaging, spreadsheet, search, and soon I am sure some type of word processor). They will not create their own browser -- why do this when you can leverage the ones already out there and simly create toolbars and plugins? Google has always been about choice and they will not change that aspect of their business plan.
In the browser wars, the paradigm shift was from the desktop to the web-browser, which was just a container for web-based content. The new container is the media player, folks! MS doesn't really care if you're using FireFox as long as it's Windows Media Player delivering rich content -- including advertising. The battle now is between Flash, Quicktime, Media Player, etc... This is not a magnanimous move by Microsoft, this is a no-nonsense strategy to make sure that Media Player is the container no matter what browser you're using.
Wait, this was one of the lyrics sung by the Ewoks in the Return of the Jedi.... Remember the song at the end? "Yub Nub.... Da dum de doo" or something
....from The Terminator. When does it gain consciousness again? 2024?
Why are you using PHP to do this? Were you bored?
The innovative company that Sun once was is no more. They were asleep while the world changed, and now they are playing catch-up. They are the next Novell. I wish them the best of luck (although I can't stand McNealy), because open standards are good for everyone, and anything that challenges the MS monopoly is good. In the meantime I'll stick with OS X.... because it works.
"Linux developers have finally succeeded in creating a "self-forking" Linux distribution. Approximately every 3-8 months, the code will spontaneously fork into a new distribution, this creating more choices for users of Linux. This, apparently, has been the goal of Linux all along." ---- Seriously, folks, does the world need another Linux distro? Possibly I am not well-versed enough in Linux internals to understand how this variant is *truly* unique... but I thought that the whole friggin' point of Linux is that you have the source code and some fancy compile-time config params, so you can basically include/exclude any component that you want!!!!? This means you can create a light, embedded version... or a full-blown server. All from the same source code. What is it with the Penguin-clan and all of their distributions? Quit diluting the value of a great idea, people. Linux is a fantastic thing, but if you would just take the time to focus on one, two, or even three distros then things would move forward a lot faster.