This may or may not be an accurate assertion, but please support it some with
something other than self-assuredness.  On the flip side, there are some signs
that do point in the direction of Apple being interested in locking down each of
their platforms as much as possible.  While the company has changed over the
years, they appear to have always been of a mind that end users are to be kept
at arm's length for fear of tinkering.  I understand that their processor
architecture was appealing to many hobbyists, but compare that world view to the
PC clone market that emerged at the same time.  Clearly, it shows two very
different philosophies emerging in two very different ecosystems: one is open
(perhaps more through circumstances than philosophical conviction) and the other
is closed.

Fast-forward to today.  Apple is an active player in several segments: major
ones being personal computing, mobile devices, and media, such as TV set-top
boxes.  Looking at their recent statements and decisions made in those spaces,
they move to lock down their products as much as they can get away with and
defend it with fear-mongering over fragmentation and poor user experience.  But
essentially Apple wants to always present prospective customers with the same
choice of trusting the company with the lock and key to the wondrous walled
garden or be "out-there" on their own, where who knows what kinds of bad things
could happen to them.  I am torn on this.  I am not a zealot and I can see that
Google has done some of this in a much milder form of luring people into opening
up ever more personal information to them as a trade-off for convenience and
ever-lasting supported integration of services.  It can work.  And it can be a
worth-while proposition to the consumers.  We can't reject this position merely
on the grounds of "it's evil, therefore it'll never work."  People don't always
act in their own self-interest.  We have to accept that.  But it isn't as though
this philosophy is prevalent in Apple's mobile products and totally alien in
their PC's.  It's just harder to implement.

 Alexey

________________________________
From: CKoerner <chessm...@gmail.com>
To: The Java Posse <javaposse@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 2:10:47 PM
Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Email from Jobs re Java on OS-X

Anyone who thinks the Mac is going to be nothing but a big iPhone is
so unbelievably misguided that it would be a waste of time. Heres your
signs.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

While your using your 'Jump to Conclusions' mat, you should figure
that Apple intends to turn everyones TV into a big iphone.

<shakes head>

I bet you main computer isn't even a Mac. I'm not wasting my time
discussing such a misguided view as "Apple is going to turn the Mac
into a big iphone". Enjoy your mat and your tinfoil had, I have better
things to do.

Out of respect for your busy schedule, I will refrain from pointing
out the irony of posting one's lack of interest in discussion on a
message board.

On Oct 22, 2:53 pm, CKoerner <chessm...@gmail.com> wrote:

erm... but you just did!

On 22 October 2010 20:00, Alexey <inline_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

--
Kevin Wright

mail / gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com
pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright
twitter: @thecoda

Sometimes you see something so dumb that you can't help but keep
looking. I'm just not going to try to engage in the argument because
the fundamental assumption of "Apple turn Mac into big iPhone" is
idiocy.

If you can't be bothered to expand on your argument, perhaps it's
better to keep it to yourself.

I never made an argument, just a conclusion. Is that ok with you
Forest?

But with the new apple TV running ios with no hard drive, haven't they just
turned you TV into a big iPod (non)Touch (not that there is anything wrong
with that)?
On 23 Oct 2010 05:23, "CKoerner" <chessm...@gmail.com> wrote:

"The Java Posse" group.
javaposse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<javaposse%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups .com>
.
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

I think this is tied in with the App Store and, significantly, the
software stack on the new Airs.

The T's and C's are clear that developers can only use 'core'
technologies in their applications. The new MacBook Airs are shipping
--without Flash preinstalled-- which allows Apple to bar all Flash/Air
dependent applications, as well as Java.

So, just like iOS you have in essence to use (primarily) Apple dev
tools to write your software --if-- you want to sell it through the
App Store.

Having mulled over the whole situation, and listened to podcast 326
this evening on the way home (London to Shropshire, I needed another
30 minutes guys!) I have come to two conclusions:

Oracle really can't afford for there not to be a JVM and JDK for OS X.

If there is a gap, I will simply run Ubuntu concurrently with OS X and
run my dev environment in a VM instead.

Oracle have a good few months to sort something out.

On Oct 22, 1:58 pm, phil swenson <phil.swen...@gmail.com> wrote:

What kind of crazy logic is this, to blame Oracle because *Apple* is deprecating their JDK? Are you saying Sun/Oracle should be maintaining a separate port of the JDK for every vendor that does one of their own???

Rob

On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:23 AM, Christian Catchpole wrote:

I wonder if Apple charged, say, an additional $200 fee to buy an OS X
Mac with Java JDK pre-installed, if that would generate enough revenue
to pay for the team at Apple that has maintained Java?

IOW, could Apple cater to software developer professionals who like to
use their hardware for developing Java on, and have that burden of
support pay for itself?

Is the Java developer community that likes Mac hardware really too
small a community to justify such an approach?

I wonder if it is even something that Apple would entertain?

Or is it that they actually prefer the anti-Java media attention and
are wanting to stimulate that on purpose?

Is just really strange that this year Apple in particular has embarked
on one move after another that alienates software developers from
their company, brand, and products.

The other strange thing about it is that they evidently don't see any
value in computer science - do they really believe that Objective C is
going to carry their product line the rest of this century? That there
is no need for any innovation to take place on their computers in the
arena of computer science? Do they assume that they alone constitute
enough innovation potential that they can safely ignore inviting other
computer software professionals to embrace their computers and
practice their profession on their hardware?

I can understand Apple wanting to coddle consumers and provide them a
virus-free, safe, and uncomplicated experience. But at the same time
they are steering the future of individual computing products into a
mode to where there will be no room and freedom for experimentation.
Linux will be the last place left to where such freedom exist (am
imagining that other players like Microsoft, Google, RIM, HP will all
eventually embrace the locked down app store approach as a way to
solve the computer virus problem).

What was the original motivation for Apple taking ownership of the producing
and releasing JDK for the Mac ? Was this somehow related to their jealous
guardianship of maintaining the Gui libs (AWT, Swing L&F etc)?

On Oct 22, 6:17 pm, Rob Ross <rob.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

If the value provided by Java isn't enough to make it worth a platform
vendor's time and money to maintain a Java port -- which is apparently
where we now stand on OS X -- then the ball is in Oracle's court.
There are several reasons it would be in Oracle's self-interest to
provide Java for OS X:

* It will keep Java attractive to developers.  Without Java on Mac,
some number of developers will stop developing Java, and others in the
future who would have developed Java won't, solely because it isn't
available on their platform of choice.  It is impossible to know how
big or small this number is.

* It will maintain Java's perceived legitimacy.  Given the order-of-
magnitude division of desktop market share (it's not too far off to
round it to 90% Windows, 9% Mac, 0.9% Linux), not being on Mac
effectively makes Desktop Java a Windows-only technology… which is of
course completely pointless, because at that point, you might as well
just write native Windows apps.

The underlying story here, IMHO, is the final and total failure of
Desktop Java.  If it mattered, Apple couldn't afford not to support
it, because there would be a class of users other than Java Developers
who would miss it, and wouldn't buy Macs because of its absence.  That
failure really is Sun's fault, and therefore Oracle's problem to fix,
should it choose to.

--Chris

I answered this in another thread, but briefly:

* Apple was in very bad shape in 1997 (most people expected it to be
acquired or go out of business), so Sun wasn't all that interested in
putting resources into a doomed platform.  Their JDK 1.0 was about as
half-assed a release as you'll ever see.  They were pretty happy to
let Apple deal with it and, for a number of years, put a few Sun
engineers on Apple's campus to help with the MRJ.

* Most JVMs at that time were provided as a developer tool with an IDE
(Metrowerks CodeWarrior, Symantic Café, Roaster), or as an applet-
runner within a browser (Netscape, MSIE). Compatibility and
performance were all over the map. Apple's stated goal was to provide
a single high-quality VM that browsers and developers could just
standardize on, and count on being present.

On Oct 22, 10:52 pm, Miroslav Pokorny <miroslav.poko...@gmail.com>
wrote:

humm, the problem is... Java is pretty much used for development tools for Java projects or for Java projects of which the bulk of those are enterprise apps. Objective-C will not replace nor will apple hardware replace what's being used in the enterprise environment. And, most enterprises don't care about using Mac hardware for the development of enterprise applications. Windows is good enough... so I don't see pressure here from that direction. The pressure is; Java is now dead on emerging client platforms. The only hope is that Oracle and Google settle in a way that keeps Dalvik going. If not, Android will live on without it and that will be it for java on client platforms... outside of enterprise applications. And that won't most likely include a whole lot of end user GUIs.. I suspect the bulk will be operational interfaces.

Kirk

On Oct 23, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Chris Adamson wrote:

BTW. interesting blog entry on this from Matt Drance at Apple
Outsider:

http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/10/22/java/?utm_source=twitterfeed&...

Major points of interest include the fact that Apple had a bunch of
people working hard on Java over the years, and that the bulk of that
effort was spent on AWT/Swing, which is a really big job and a really
hard problem in the end.  That, and javax.sound, are what Soy Latte
foundered on after all, and clearly they'd be the stumbling block for
a community-developed Mac JVM.  Last graf is a killer.

Matt is an indie iOS developer and trainer (he now teaches the Prags
courses along with Daniel Steinberg) who was an Apple iPhone
Evangelist for a number of years.  Interestingly, I met Matt when he
was an ADC engineer supporting Java on the Mac; he got assigned to
help me figure out an obscure hang with QuickTime for Java's capture
settings dialog.

--Chris

Again, I think you see Sun stepping in with their
 own JDK primarily as a means of attracting developers and legitimizing
 the Java platform.  They may not have wanted to, but it seems they had
 to.

======

Clearly all this act  is to fend off competition and make money out of
java(read stephen coulborne's blog).

I think Sun was just moving into a trap that it created (with its open
source game & then asking for licensing fees with its testing
kits.).They forgot competition & the other problems that came bundling
together.

They tried to come out of their own trap. Sign, too little too
late.THEY SHOULD HAVE LEANT FROM IBM..

jd

On 10/22/10, Chris Adamson <invalidn...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's why I think it's a mistake that Java insists on a UI layer.
It's a huge complication and frankly, a naive hunt for a common
denominator which can never be low enough. Any Java desktop app which
was just remotely interesting (not a whole lot to choose from), ships
with native bindings of some sort (to be able to restart, integrate
with systray, show proper filechooser etc.). So, like C#, I wish Java
was more focussed around interoperability rather than trying to
encapsulate everything and a kitchen sink. If that was the case, it
would probably be a whole lot easier for Apple to maintain. Nothing's
wrong with "write once, run anywhere"; but a multi-platform UI is a
pipe-dream that can only achieve mediocrity - which we all know Steve
Jobs does not do!

On 10/22/2010 10:39 PM, CKoerner wrote:
It's ok for me. For me conclusions without arguments have little value.

--
f.g.

OK can we turn this thread into a meta argument about bringing up
scala instead of an argument about arguing?

On Oct 25, 3:33 am, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
wrote:

Well, you can't have it both ways.  How can Oracle claim to have this
great platform that runs everywhere... if someone else does it for
us.  I'm not saying they "should" maintain all the JVMs, but without
some kind of agreement with those who do, Oracle can't be surprised
this has happened.  But as has been suggested, perhaps Oracle don't
care either.  Sure this opens it up to anyone to build a quality JVM
for OS X but the question how quickly can it be done.

Apple are obviously not stupid and have weighed up the lost sales to
the Java community against the odds of them destroying a competitor
technology.  Perhaps it’s a positive sign that they actually see it as
a threat now.  I think they are happy to lose this battle to help win
the war.  I think they are thinking at least 5 years ahead on this
one.

On Oct 23, 8:17 am, Rob Ross <rob.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

On Oct 23, 7:39 am, CKoerner <chessm...@gmail.com> wrote:

I really doubt they are seeing it as a threat though, the typical
reasoning going on in iSteve's head is well known by now and has been
covered in other threads. Java (and Flash) has been deprecated little
by little over the years, in various subtle ways. I think it's no
coincidence that with this last stroke, Java is officially deprecated
by Apple _as_well_ as being locked out of their future app channel.

Few could have any doubt, that Apple does *not* want Java/Flash on in
any way, shape or form. Apple's "we know best" has worked out so well
for them in the past, I think they are simply applying it more broadly
to their advantage. Since they put customer experience ahead of
developers, it goes without saying that the Java developer lost out on
this one.

Hi all,

I don't know if this has been mentioned in any of the other posts
about No Java on the Mac, but Rick Ross of Javalobby fame tweeted
about a petition for Apple to contribute the work it has done so far:

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/macjdk

Have a look, I'm going to sign it.

Phil

On Oct 22, 7:10 pm, CKoerner <chessm...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you do - just remember to revoke the OAUTH permissions after you sign up
- they spam tweets from EVERYONE whose signed up whenever the petition
reaches a milestone.

Seeing upward of 200 "we just reached 1000 votes" earlier was painful.

--
"Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things" — Steven Wilson,
Porcupine Tree