(1) Develop using a framework that allows me to write once and deploy on a variety of handsets.
This isn't a choice. Such a tool doesn't meaningfully exist if you want to make decent applications. You'll always need to tweak for the quirks of different platforms.
(2) Develop natively for the iPhone and use the framework everywhere else.
Well, yeah, if you want to deploy low-quality applications everywhere else.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question - I asked how the iPhone rules make developing for other platforms more expensive. Instead you're rambling about some bullshit about developing for the iPhone and other platforms, which has nothing to do with your original statement.
That seems true from observation of their actions, but I can't imagine the business case really lines up with it.
Nobody ever accused most executives that run big businesses today of being particularly competent at business. They mostly exist to enrich themselves by selling the company down the river for short-term gains.
From everything I can discern, Photoshop and Illustrator are still by far their cash cows.
I haven't seen any figures, but I wouldn't be so sure. Flash and Dreamweaver are very popular in web design and production. Anyway, nobody buys Illustrator or Photoshop as standalone products anymore, you buy the Creative Suite, and get the other stuff thrown in with it.
Their ownership of PDF helps them sell some PDF authoring tools, but it's not the revenue stream that Photoshop is.
Again, I'm not so sure about this. People may not buy Photoshop and Illustrator as standalone products, but businesses do buy Acrobat Pro as a standalone product in large quantities. Sure it costs less to buy, but it also costs less to develop, and when you buy Creative Suite it counts as an Acrobat Pro sale as well as a Photoshop sale.
I don't have any hard answers, but to me the weirdest thing is the change of culture. Having worked in design and photo editing, it used to be hell to try and get the boss to fork out for a copy of Photoshop. They would say "why can't we use something cheaper, like Corel, or [shudder] Microsoft Paint, or perhaps pirate it?" This was at a time when Photoshop had few serious competitors. Today, Photoshop has mounting competition, and the bosses have the opposite attitude - "If it's not Adobe, there must be something wrong with it. It can't be very good if it's that much cheaper." It's the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft" syndrome all over again. And just like that syndrome, it is highly entrenched. There are courses all over the world in web design that basically teach Flash and Dreamweaver as the holy grail, and teach people to do web mock-ups in Photoshop, and those courses will address issues like HTML5 when hell freezes over.
It's a bit sad, as someone who has used Adobe stuff from almost the beginning, to see that people now miss the point. Rather than seeing the potential of the tools, it's become entrenched rote-learning and slavishness to the product, rather than the vision.
Adobe has always been more about good editing tools, rather than runtime platforms.
Yeah, maybe when Photoshop and Illustrator were their main products. Since then (and particularly since the acquisition of Macromedia) they have been all about "owning the platform" and trying to tie their products into the web. It's not just Flash, they took PDF from being a nice WYSYWIG print document format, and then started embedding all kinds of interactive bullshit into it. Or Adobe AIR.
Since around the turn of the Century, they stopped being about creative tools and started marketing to executives as being "business tools." The rapid decline of their applications was very evident, as they lost focus and tried to shoehorn their "platform" thinking into every product, even if it didn't really belong there.
Porn is the [partial] satisfaction of our strongest urge, that to mate. (If it wasn't the strongest, we'd be gone now.)
No, our strongest urges are to breathe air, drink water and eat food. If those were not heeded, we'd definitely be gone now. However, it is perfectly possible to live your life without ever having sex. And for many people it barely ranks as an important urge at all.
It seems to me that this is anti-competitive. They're using the iPhone's market dominance to increase the costs of producing applications on other platforms.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
If you develop for another platform, how would Apple's policies affect you at all? How does Apple requiring certain tools for iPhone developers change the cost of developing for Android or Windows Phone?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
How is this not a bribe? They are being paid to promote reading. Usually, someone is paid to do a job, because the employer benefits in the form of profits. In this case, the only benefit is to the employee, the very person who is being paid. Sounds like a bribe to me.
Except many of them know that they can get pregnant and then hop on welfare and get a free ride - so we'd have to pay them even more to not get pregnant than welfare pays them TO get pregnant.
Riiiight, so being poor, having to pay for the baby (which costs more than welfare provides), and leading a generally miserable life is a "free ride"? I don't think you have any idea of how the real world works.
It is true that Adobe is currently engaging in blatant propaganda, and Flash is not at all essential to the web today. However, as someone who is widely considered an "Apple fanboy," please stop reading or linking to RoughlyDrafted.com articles. Whatever truths they may contain are drowned out by sycophantic Apple narcissism, and counter-propaganda attempts that would make Stalin blush.
Roughly Drafted is a site that makes even the biggest Apple apologists ashamed enough to run IE7 on Windows Vista with Silverlight installed, while subscribing to the Richard Stallman fan club.
That last sentence is really the core problem here. We were used to Steve Wozniak's Apple and we were in love with that Apple.
Apple was never just "Steve Wozniak's Apple." It was always a partnership between Woz and Jobs, plus other investors and engineers. If it were up to Woz alone, he would still be tinkering with radio and dial-a-joke lines.
More importantly, if it were up to Woz, there never would have been a Macintosh, instead there would have been an Apple IV, which would have been quickly forgotten in computer history.
No, it's not a joke. The question asked was how many 70-year olds do I know that would have any idea of how to bypass a filter. Seeing as most of the older people I know are highly intelligent engineers and scientists, it's quite a high proportion. I never said it held true for the general population.
Losing sight of the context and harping on about how a word should mean something other than what everybody understood is one of the aspects about geeks which alienates normal people.
I'm afraid you have it backwards. One of the things that alienates people about geeks is they take common words and twist their meaning to apply only to them.
Around here, it gets you an "insightful" mod, but don't do that away from other geeks. It makes you look like an imbecile.
No, to most people, technology means technology. It's only computer nerds who think it only means computers and electronics, and it makes them looks like imbeciles.
Slashdot Mirror
How so? Please explain your reasoning. Where does the Hotelier get the $100 to refund the rich man, after he already used it to pay his grocer?
Whoever he got the $100 to refund the rich man from. He gave the $100 from the rich man to the grocer, so he has to get another $100 from somewhere.
But the hotelier is still in debt.
(1) Develop using a framework that allows me to write once and deploy on a variety of handsets.
This isn't a choice. Such a tool doesn't meaningfully exist if you want to make decent applications. You'll always need to tweak for the quirks of different platforms.
(2) Develop natively for the iPhone and use the framework everywhere else.
Well, yeah, if you want to deploy low-quality applications everywhere else.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question - I asked how the iPhone rules make developing for other platforms more expensive. Instead you're rambling about some bullshit about developing for the iPhone and other platforms, which has nothing to do with your original statement.
That's a very limited and inadequate definition of the word. I think you need to get a better dictionary.
That seems true from observation of their actions, but I can't imagine the business case really lines up with it.
Nobody ever accused most executives that run big businesses today of being particularly competent at business. They mostly exist to enrich themselves by selling the company down the river for short-term gains.
From everything I can discern, Photoshop and Illustrator are still by far their cash cows.
I haven't seen any figures, but I wouldn't be so sure. Flash and Dreamweaver are very popular in web design and production. Anyway, nobody buys Illustrator or Photoshop as standalone products anymore, you buy the Creative Suite, and get the other stuff thrown in with it.
Their ownership of PDF helps them sell some PDF authoring tools, but it's not the revenue stream that Photoshop is.
Again, I'm not so sure about this. People may not buy Photoshop and Illustrator as standalone products, but businesses do buy Acrobat Pro as a standalone product in large quantities. Sure it costs less to buy, but it also costs less to develop, and when you buy Creative Suite it counts as an Acrobat Pro sale as well as a Photoshop sale.
I don't have any hard answers, but to me the weirdest thing is the change of culture. Having worked in design and photo editing, it used to be hell to try and get the boss to fork out for a copy of Photoshop. They would say "why can't we use something cheaper, like Corel, or [shudder] Microsoft Paint, or perhaps pirate it?" This was at a time when Photoshop had few serious competitors. Today, Photoshop has mounting competition, and the bosses have the opposite attitude - "If it's not Adobe, there must be something wrong with it. It can't be very good if it's that much cheaper." It's the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft" syndrome all over again. And just like that syndrome, it is highly entrenched. There are courses all over the world in web design that basically teach Flash and Dreamweaver as the holy grail, and teach people to do web mock-ups in Photoshop, and those courses will address issues like HTML5 when hell freezes over.
It's a bit sad, as someone who has used Adobe stuff from almost the beginning, to see that people now miss the point. Rather than seeing the potential of the tools, it's become entrenched rote-learning and slavishness to the product, rather than the vision.
The 1991 track DJ Culture by British electronic music group Pet Shop Boys.
Well, that cleanses the aural stain. A little.
AFAIK, Palm still owns BeOS.
Pfffft. Big deal. I still own BeOS, it even came with a nice book. You don't see me trying to sell myself for millions of dollars.
Uhh, was that post supposed to be read to the tune of "Fantasy" by Black Box? Don't do that.
Adobe has always been more about good editing tools, rather than runtime platforms.
Yeah, maybe when Photoshop and Illustrator were their main products. Since then (and particularly since the acquisition of Macromedia) they have been all about "owning the platform" and trying to tie their products into the web. It's not just Flash, they took PDF from being a nice WYSYWIG print document format, and then started embedding all kinds of interactive bullshit into it. Or Adobe AIR.
Since around the turn of the Century, they stopped being about creative tools and started marketing to executives as being "business tools." The rapid decline of their applications was very evident, as they lost focus and tried to shoehorn their "platform" thinking into every product, even if it didn't really belong there.
What does this mean for Flashblock and Flash cookies?
What a strange question. It seems about as relevant as asking what this means for Flashdance.
Apparently these lawyers don't think judges and juries know what executives are.
The primary ingredient of Torgo's Executive Powder?
Porn is the [partial] satisfaction of our strongest urge, that to mate. (If it wasn't the strongest, we'd be gone now.)
No, our strongest urges are to breathe air, drink water and eat food. If those were not heeded, we'd definitely be gone now. However, it is perfectly possible to live your life without ever having sex. And for many people it barely ranks as an important urge at all.
It seems to me that this is anti-competitive. They're using the iPhone's market dominance to increase the costs of producing applications on other platforms.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
If you develop for another platform, how would Apple's policies affect you at all? How does Apple requiring certain tools for iPhone developers change the cost of developing for Android or Windows Phone?
It's Senator Conroys all the way down...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
How is this not a bribe? They are being paid to promote reading. Usually, someone is paid to do a job, because the employer benefits in the form of profits. In this case, the only benefit is to the employee, the very person who is being paid. Sounds like a bribe to me.
Except many of them know that they can get pregnant and then hop on welfare and get a free ride - so we'd have to pay them even more to not get pregnant than welfare pays them TO get pregnant.
Riiiight, so being poor, having to pay for the baby (which costs more than welfare provides), and leading a generally miserable life is a "free ride"? I don't think you have any idea of how the real world works.
It is true that Adobe is currently engaging in blatant propaganda, and Flash is not at all essential to the web today. However, as someone who is widely considered an "Apple fanboy," please stop reading or linking to RoughlyDrafted.com articles. Whatever truths they may contain are drowned out by sycophantic Apple narcissism, and counter-propaganda attempts that would make Stalin blush.
Roughly Drafted is a site that makes even the biggest Apple apologists ashamed enough to run IE7 on Windows Vista with Silverlight installed, while subscribing to the Richard Stallman fan club.
But the reports I've read suggest that Android is going to own the iPhone,
How can it be a "report" on something that hasn't happened yet? In the reality-based world, we call those "predictions."
That last sentence is really the core problem here. We were used to Steve Wozniak's Apple and we were in love with that Apple.
Apple was never just "Steve Wozniak's Apple." It was always a partnership between Woz and Jobs, plus other investors and engineers. If it were up to Woz alone, he would still be tinkering with radio and dial-a-joke lines.
More importantly, if it were up to Woz, there never would have been a Macintosh, instead there would have been an Apple IV, which would have been quickly forgotten in computer history.
OK, never mind then.
The 70-yr-olds you know are very different from the ones I know.
That's highly probable.
No, it's not a joke. The question asked was how many 70-year olds do I know that would have any idea of how to bypass a filter. Seeing as most of the older people I know are highly intelligent engineers and scientists, it's quite a high proportion. I never said it held true for the general population.
You're reading Slashdot. Here "tech generation" has a well understood meaning, which you're ignoring.
Does it? So which generation is the "tech generation" as it's so clearly understood on slashdot?
Losing sight of the context and harping on about how a word should mean something other than what everybody understood is one of the aspects about geeks which alienates normal people.
I'm afraid you have it backwards. One of the things that alienates people about geeks is they take common words and twist their meaning to apply only to them.
Around here, it gets you an "insightful" mod, but don't do that away from other geeks. It makes you look like an imbecile.
No, to most people, technology means technology. It's only computer nerds who think it only means computers and electronics, and it makes them looks like imbeciles.