Apple forbids for the iPhone even tools that auto-generate ObjC
Fabrizio Giudici
Hash: SHA1
I've just received this, and I've only got a reference to an italian
website, but I think it should be easy to confirm with an
international source.
"Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by
Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be
originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed
by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and
Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs
(e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an
intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are
prohibited).
http://www.theapplelounge.com/news/iphone-os-4-vieta-applicazioni-flash-cs5/
<http://www.theapplelounge.com/news/iphone-os-4-vieta-applicazioni-flash-cs5/>
This clearly prevents any workaround from Adobe, that thought about a
tool to auto-translate Flash stuff into ObjC. But also prevents from
using various other tools that allowed to write code e.g. in Java that
produced ObjC.
I don't think anybody has ever reached these levels of paranoia seen
in Apple. It's even embarrassing.
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAku/VWkACgkQeDweFqgUGxeLJQCeNLZNuw9/7Eg2QDhcKu7Rk3pY
y7EAn17XsBnU/nQRE82nboI7Iy2g5zLZ
=mZ69
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Viktor Klang
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
--
Viktor Klang
| "A complex system that works is invariably
| found to have evolved from a simple system
| that worked." - John Gall
Akka - the Actor Kernel: Akkasource.org
Twttr: twitter.com/viktorklang
Steven Siebert
Seems like an awful amount of work ($$) to go through just to block innovation. Apple wouldn't be that evil...would they? =)
Marcelo Fukushima
Marcelo Takeshi Fukushima
Viktor Klang
Programming forensics (http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/books/techrev/fp1syl.htm), perhaps?
Seems like an awful amount of work ($$) to go through just to block innovation. Apple wouldn't be that evil...would they? =)
Is programming by code monkey also a code generation tool?
Fabrizio Giudici
Hash: SHA1
On 4/9/10 19:59 , Viktor Klang wrote:
> So how do you determine the source of the source?
Since the post refers to a paragraph of the Apple - developer
agreement, which is under NDA, I don't expect that there will be an
official source... soon. Maybe the EFF will be able to post a copy
with the trick about the public administration transparency as they
did with NASA, but it might require some time. It's that I didn't
think that the original poster is italian, so I expected an english
version. In fact, here it is the original:
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAku/lLAACgkQeDweFqgUGxfcjwCghXCEehW/hiBQKVLWbaoBleSX
EDMAoLWN52rFp1/GSSSyYag6KgbhIgkD
=fDDt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karsten Silz
wrote:
> I don't think anybody has ever reached these levels of paranoia seen
> in Apple. It's even embarrassing.
I don't like this change in Apple policy. I mean I wasn't exactly
looking forward to cross-platform Flash apps (most cross-platform apps
stink because they are so different from native apps - Swing,
anybody?), but I would like the market sort that out, not Apple.
The one interesting bit is that this license change only kicks in with
iPhone OS 4. Apple could have changed the terms now, so why wait for
a couple of months? There is this theory that the multi-tasking
coming in iPhone OS 4 relies on analyzing the apps and fails if they
run interpreted / alien code:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/09/apples_prohibition_of_flash_built_apps_in_iphone_4_0_related_to_multitasking.html
The Apple approach to multi-tasking is rather unique, indeed, and
seems better on paper than the Android way in most cases - as Steve
Jobs yesterday said, if you need a task manager, you blew it multi-
tasking. :-)
Fabrizio Giudici
Hash: SHA1
On 4/9/10 23:05 , Karsten Silz wrote:
>
> The one interesting bit is that this license change only kicks in
> with iPhone OS 4. Apple could have changed the terms now, so why
> wait for a couple of months? There is this theory that the
> multi-tasking coming in iPhone OS 4 relies on analyzing the apps
> and fails if they run interpreted / alien code:
> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/09/apples_prohibition_of_flash_built_apps_in_iphone_4_0_related_to_multitasking.html
I
>
think it could be or not feasible from the technical point of view,
but the legal thing is enough as a showstopper. Who would buy a
software production tool made by Adobe (or by others, since the thing
is not directly aimed against Adobe, but against
all-the-world-outside-Apple) knowing that it produces software
products that are illegal?
BTW, Apple doesn't need to embed a check in the multitasker. They have
got the monopoly in the store, they could even deploy some very
sophisticated pattern detection algorithm on a supercomputer to filter
the applications submitted to the store.
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAku/mSwACgkQeDweFqgUGxexQACgkZmldV0iJ1214qCM4pLo1S+6
FWQAoKsk5lauW/vaQFnyto/aH/ptw86j
=E7ol
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karsten Silz
wrote:
> Who would buy a software production tool made by Adobe (or by others, since the thing
> is not directly aimed against Adobe, but against
> all-the-world-outside-Apple) knowing that it produces software
> products that are illegal?
The millions of designers and developers that have bought versions 1-4
of the Creative Suite and individual products (like Dreamweaver or
Photoshop) over the last years, maybe? Flash-to-iPhone cross-
compilation is a new feature in CS 5, and it seems that feature won't
work starting with iPhone OS 4 in the summer (it's seems still fine
for now on iPhone OS 3.1).
> BTW, Apple doesn't need to embed a check in the multitasker. They have
> got the monopoly in the store, they could even deploy some very
> sophisticated pattern detection algorithm on a supercomputer to filter
> the applications submitted to the store.
If the iPhone OS 4 really analyzes an app, then this seems more like
profiling to me, which you can only do at runtime. So the static code
analysis you suggested won't work - plus at about 10,000 app
submissions a week, that would be a hell of a lot of data to push out
to each iPhone OS device (daily? weekly?). Remember, there's no
"Windows Update weekly patch day" on iPhone OS. ;-)
Mark Volkmann
<fabrizio...@tidalwave.it> wrote:
> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
Might need to append "Except on the iPhone and iPad." to the end of that. ;-)
--
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
Christian Catchpole
______ <- line
[Apple] <- crossed
There's no way I'm doing any Apple dev now. Life is too short. I'm
too busy breaching patents as it is. :)
On Apr 10, 2:27 am, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've just received this, and I've only got a reference to an italian
> website, but I think it should be easy to confirm with an
> international source.
>
> "Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by
> Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be
> originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed
> by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and
> Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs
> (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an
> intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are
> prohibited).
>
> http://www.theapplelounge.com/news/iphone-os-4-vieta-applicazioni-fla...
> <http://www.theapplelounge.com/news/iphone-os-4-vieta-applicazioni-fla...>
>
> This clearly prevents any workaround from Adobe, that thought about a
> tool to auto-translate Flash stuff into ObjC. But also prevents from
> using various other tools that allowed to write code e.g. in Java that
> produced ObjC.
>
> I don't think anybody has ever reached these levels of paranoia seen
> in Apple. It's even embarrassing.
>
> - --
> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
> java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people
> Fabrizio.Giud...@tidalwave.it
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Jess Holle
Sure they want the world to use Objective C and their APIs to program.
Requiring developers to either do so or stay off their platform,
though? Seriously?
My solution is the same as Christian's: stay off their platform. Their
platform may be a lot cooler than any of Microsoft's, but their outdoing
Microsoft on the evil front.
--
Jess Holle
Moandji Ezana
There is this theory that the multi-tasking
coming in iPhone OS 4 relies on analyzing the apps and fails if they
run interpreted / alien code:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/09/apples_prohibition_of_flash_built_apps_in_iphone_4_0_related_to_multitasking.html
phil.s...@gmail.com
This multi-tasking angle doesn't make any sense. Cross compilation
still means you have native code in the end.
I think Apple is doing this because they don't like the idea of people
writing "one size fits all" applications that don't look/behave like
native iPhone apps. That and they hate Adobe for some reason. I
recently argued against using a multi-platform tool at my company
because I thought the apps would be kludgy and we'd lose some
features. Also, all the code on the internet for iPhone is Obj C so
we wouldn't be able to leverage it or the community. That being said,
this is a terrible policy. Let people decide for themselves and let
the market sort it out.
That being said: multi-platform is only one reason people are doing
cross compliers. Apple dev tools are pretty pathetic compared to java
tools. And Obj C is archaic. Maybe Apple should spend more time on
the "developer user experience" and people might not have the need to
seek out alternative tools.
On Apr 10, 3:53 am, Moandji Ezana <mwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Karsten Silz <karsten.s...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > There is this theory that the multi-tasking
> > coming in iPhone OS 4 relies on analyzing the apps and fails if they
> > run interpreted / alien code:
>
> >http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/09/apples_prohibition_of_f...
Zenkan Hsieh
That being said I really don't like this new move from Apple. from consumer and developers point of view it is always better to compete with technology rather than proprietary Tools or APIs.
by the way, don't agree your comment about apple dev tools. Yes Xcode is a a bit dated but the GUI builder is amazing and Objective-c has several features that Java can actually use.
Paul King
> [...] Objective-c has several features that Java can actually use.
... Interested to hear your (and anyone else's) top 5 list ...
(I am interested in technology/tool features not politics.)
Cheers,
Paul.
Fabrizio Giudici
Hash: SHA1
On 4/9/10 23:32 , Mark Volkmann wrote:
>
>> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager Tidalwave
>> s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
>
> Might need to append "Except on the iPhone and iPad." to the end of
> that. ;-)
>
LOL. But it doesn't work on my water closed sink, too ;-)
Back to Karsten, as it sounds he misinterpreted my previous post (I
have probably explained bad). I think that Adobe's idea of the CS5
which cross-compiles to ObjC is good (generally speaking, I don't know
about the final results).
I was saying that Apple doesn't need to enforce a technical check
(even though it will probably do). The legal thing is enough, because
if I was an Adobe customer, I won't however use it to produce software
that I already know it's not legal. Apple's move degraded Adobe's tool
to those that rely upon jailbreaking. Could be interesting for a few
geeks, but not for corporates going through standard marketing channels.
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAku/qtkACgkQeDweFqgUGxezQgCfQdvLAZgBMDVmSa65TS+zv/ZL
XPAAn1Wx576c5Y6OaslSmyviHOU3teIr
=CAL/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Eddie
On Apr 9, 11:27 am, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've just received this, and I've only got a reference to an italian
> website, but I think it should be easy to confirm with an
> international source.
>
> "Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by
> Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be
> originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed
> by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and
> Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs
> (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an
> intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are
> prohibited).
>
> http://www.theapplelounge.com/news/iphone-os-4-vieta-applicazioni-fla...
> <http://www.theapplelounge.com/news/iphone-os-4-vieta-applicazioni-fla...>
>
> This clearly prevents any workaround from Adobe, that thought about a
> tool to auto-translate Flash stuff into ObjC. But also prevents from
> using various other tools that allowed to write code e.g. in Java that
> produced ObjC.
>
> I don't think anybody has ever reached these levels of paranoia seen
> in Apple. It's even embarrassing.
>
> - --
> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
> java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people
> Fabrizio.Giud...@tidalwave.it
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Casper Bang
Google. What IS a little interesting to see, is how the Mono crowd
will reach given their previous lax tolerance (or some would say,
naively optimistic attitude).
/Casper
RogerV
order to program apps for iphone/itouch/ipad, one has to step
backwards to a weird hybrid variant of C language that is a two decade
old anachronism. The one virtue of Objective-C is that it's actually a
better OOP language than C++. Yet in the end it's C with its raw
address pointers -- and to boot, reference counted memory objects
(ugh!)
For decades it's been an axiom that innovation in software development
takes place in the languages and tools every bit as much as in the
applications that get developed. Now Apple is forbidding that manner
of creativity. Yes, they made some tweaks to Objective-C with 2.0, but
much of that was not really that earth shaking - and some features,
like garbage collected memory, are not available on the mobile
devices.
This has been a great era for new computer languages and ideas coming
to surface, yet for the Apple mobile devices its back to the computer
language technology of circa 1991.
Christian Edward Gruber
Phil
this now feels like it is bordering on 'restraint of trade' (IANAL).
The argument about multi-tasking is, frankly, bollocks. If the code
only uses public APIs then there should be no issues. Yes, an
intermediate layer of could _could_ contain defects but no more so
than some hand-written code.
I love my OSX machines, but I'm going right off the whole Apple mobile
experience. I'm running a Nexus One alongside my iPhone and find it an
equally compelling experience but with the benefit of multi-tasking
and the ability to install applications from anywhere. I'll wait to
see how much the iAd stuff impacts normal day-to-day use of the new
phone due in the summer before deciding whether to upgrade, or to move
over to Android completely.
On Apr 9, 10:05 pm, Karsten Silz <karsten.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:27 pm, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't think anybody has ever reached these levels of paranoia seen
> > in Apple. It's even embarrassing.
>
> I don't like this change in Apple policy. I mean I wasn't exactly
> looking forward to cross-platform Flash apps (most cross-platform apps
> stink because they are so different from native apps - Swing,
> anybody?), but I would like the market sort that out, not Apple.
>
> The one interesting bit is that this license change only kicks in with
> iPhone OS 4. Apple could have changed the terms now, so why wait for
> a couple of months? There is this theory that the multi-tasking
> coming in iPhone OS 4 relies on analyzing the apps and fails if they
> run interpreted / alien code:http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/09/apples_prohibition_of_f...
Fabrizio Giudici
Hash: SHA1
On 4/12/10 06:41 , Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
> With all due respect, and with definite agreement on your points
> about language evolution, etc., nevertheless, Obejctive-C got some
> things right that we tried to get into Java but were routinely
> ignored at sun, and it took several decades to get going in other
> languages. Objective-C contains elements of AOP, has a
> garbage-collector (not on iPhone, but that's a mobile-ism, and not
> uncommon in constrained environments), etc.
Hmm... with all its defects, J2ME has had GC since 1999... Of course,
Android has got it right from its start. what do you mean with "not
uncommon?"
Given that, the arguments about whether ObjC is good or not is not
something that passionates me. I'm with the side that thinks that it's
mostly old stuff (anything that directly compiled in native code is
old stuff for me, as we have seen in 15+ years what the advantages are
for indirect compilation), but I admit it's largely a personal
perspective thing. Let's not divert from the the original point, which
is 1) the lack of choice and 2) the lack of choice pushed to the
extreme that ObjC must be used directly.
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkvC5hIACgkQeDweFqgUGxd/5gCeLSO+6VD8V6knAbtDNVXr6haU
a6sAn0RoDqpM4t7wyYLGt3EkiP3Wr9/7
=k5tM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Christian Catchpole
undetectable and therefor irrelevant. So if you get your team to
cross compile by hand, will apple say "you can't write code while
thinking about another language".
It's kind of like saying "don't write code without wearing pants".
How far can contracts and agreements go? Are there laws (in any
country) which state that agreements and contracts can't contain
irrelevant or discriminatory terms? Not that it matters I guess.
They could just omit that term and reject the apps anyway.
Fabrizio used the word "illegal". Is it correct to use the term
illegal for a breach of contract? Sure you can be sued. But when I
think of Illegal i think of breaking laws. Actual laws, not "first
born child, i can write what i want in a contract".
And the no-sue terms are saying "the legal system applies to us, but
not to you".
ps. speaking of irrelevant, my cat is now on twitter. http://twitter.com/BilliKitty
Christian Edward Gruber
Christian
Kevin Wright
Kevin Wright
mail/google talk: kev.lee...@googlemail.com
wave: kev.lee...@googlewave.com
skype: kev.lee.wright
twitter: @thecoda
Christian Catchpole
On Apr 12, 10:19 pm, Christian Edward Gruber
<christianedwardgru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I presume that you're answering the original poster behind my reply...
>
> Christian
>
> On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Christian Catchpole wrote:
>
>
>
> > This sounds especially bogus because cross-compilation could be both
> > undetectable and therefor irrelevant. So if you get your team to
> > cross compile by hand, will apple say "you can't write code while
> > thinking about another language".
>
> > It's kind of like saying "don't write code without wearing pants".
> > How far can contracts and agreements go? Are there laws (in any
> > country) which state that agreements and contracts can't contain
> > irrelevant or discriminatory terms? Not that it matters I guess.
> > They could just omit that term and reject the apps anyway.
>
> > Fabrizio used the word "illegal". Is it correct to use the term
> > illegal for a breach of contract? Sure you can be sued. But when I
> > think of Illegal i think of breaking laws. Actual laws, not "first
> > born child, i can write what i want in a contract".
>
> > And the no-sue terms are saying "the legal system applies to us, but
> > not to you".
>
> > ps. speaking of irrelevant, my cat is now on twitter.http://twitter.com/BilliKitty
Mike Wolfson
developers into the iPhone app store. Apple restricting the ability
of a developer to write once, and deploy on multiple platforms,
ensures most of them will write only for the iPhone (since it has the
biggest market share, and thus the best opportunities to make money).
This is an effort to maintain their lead in the app space, and is
based on business principles (not any technical reasons IMHO).
Eric Schmidt said (heard this on a CNET podcast, but looking for the
official quote if anyone knows where I could reference it): "The
mobile war will be won with apps". Bottom line, the most compelling
mobile platform will be the one with the best applications. The reason
Google is giving away phones to developers (through the device seeding
program), is to get them excited about developing Android apps, and
grow the Android Market.
Apples strategy may very well backfire, as many developers will leave
the Apple environments, and move onto less restrictive platforms
(hello Android!).
On Apr 9, 9:27 am, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've just received this, and I've only got a reference to an italian
> website, but I think it should be easy to confirm with an
> international source.
>
> "Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by
> Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be
> originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed
> by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and
> Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs
> (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an
> intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are
> prohibited).
>
> http://www.theapplelounge.com/news/iphone-os-4-vieta-applicazioni-fla...
> <http://www.theapplelounge.com/news/iphone-os-4-vieta-applicazioni-fla...>
>
> This clearly prevents any workaround from Adobe, that thought about a
> tool to auto-translate Flash stuff into ObjC. But also prevents from
> using various other tools that allowed to write code e.g. in Java that
> produced ObjC.
>
> I don't think anybody has ever reached these levels of paranoia seen
> in Apple. It's even embarrassing.
>
> - --
> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
> java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people
> Fabrizio.Giud...@tidalwave.it
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Alexey
wrote:
> It's kind of like saying "don't write code without wearing pants".
No one is gonna tell me to put my pants back on. Not happening.
Especially when I'm writing code.
Karsten Silz
> This is an effort to maintain their lead in the app space, and is
> based on business principles (not any technical reasons IMHO).
After reading a lot on this issue, I agree that the main issue is
business, not technical - and that Adobe's not the innocent "freedom
for developers!" fighter.
A different perspective: http://www.devwhy.com/blog/2010/4/12/its-all-about-the-framework.html
Steve weighs in:
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-steve-jobs-weighs-in-on-adobe-flash-furor-and-tells-you-to-read-john-grubers-post-about-it-2010-4
From the BeOS guy: http://www.mondaynote.com/2010/04/11/the-adobe-apple-flame-war/
Casper Bang
argumentation with me a few weeks ago is now rendered invalid.
Yesterday Apple forbid apps because they look wrong, today they forbid
apps because they are written in the wrong language and tomorrow...
probably only registered Apple fanboys with an iCarma of 5+ will be
allowed to write applications.
/Casper
On Apr 12, 9:06 pm, Karsten Silz <karsten.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:04 pm, Mike Wolfson <mwolf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is an effort to maintain their lead in the app space, and is
> > based on business principles (not any technical reasons IMHO).
>
> After reading a lot on this issue, I agree that the main issue is
> business, not technical - and that Adobe's not the innocent "freedom
> for developers!" fighter.
> A different perspective:http://www.devwhy.com/blog/2010/4/12/its-all-about-the-framework.html
> Steve weighs in:http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-steve-jobs-weighs-in-on-...
Karsten Silz
> That doesn't change the fact that a good share of your very own
> argumentation with me a few weeks ago is now rendered invalid.
Please point to me to the discussion, you tent to jump around a bit,
topic-wise.
> Yesterday Apple forbid apps because they look wrong, today they forbid
> apps because they are written in the wrong language and tomorrow...
> probably only registered Apple fanboys with an iCarma of 5+ will be
> allowed to write applications.
This seems not like a very smart argument to me. For succeeding in
the mobile world today, you need apps (well, Microsoft said that
people want experiences, not apps, when they showed Windows Phone 7,
but that's because they won't have many apps at launch). For apps,
you need developers. Developers work on attractive platforms. The
iPhone is the most attractive platform right now. So if Apple wants
to stay ahead, they need an attractive platform and developers working
on it. Pissing of some developers, like they just did, is not the best
thing for them to do - unless they think it's in their greater
platform business interest to do so (no multi-platform apps on iPhone,
forcing developers to chose the iPhone over other platform, don't hand-
over control to the Flash runtime or whatever else it was). So I
assume that Apple thought it was in their best interest to do this.
As I said before, I don't like this move by Apple. But the iPhone is
Apple's platform, they reserve the right to tell people what they can
or cannot do on their platform. If you don't like that (as a user or
a developer), then the iPhone's not for you.
phil.s...@gmail.com
http://www.macworld.com/article/150539/2010/04/apple_world.html?lsrc=twt_jsnell
I think this guy nails why Apple is doing what they are doing. I
disagree with Apple's policy, but it does make sense. To me, make
people use public APIs and how they get the code together is their
business.
"Apple doesn’t want Flash-created apps on the App Store for a simple
reason: It reduces the iPhone to a lowest-common denominator platform,
and at that point Apple loses all control over the iPhone OS
experience.
Once developers can create an app in one development environment—
Adobe’s—and compile it to run on every smartphone known to humankind,
many developers will decide to save themselves a boatload of money and
stop developing native apps for the iPhone, Android, and other
platforms. They’ll just develop once, for Flash, and let it run
anywhere.
Sounds good, but the develop-once-run-anywhere philosophy is something
that makes more sense to bean counters and development-environment
vendors than it does to platform owners and discriminating users. In
the ’90s we were told that Java apps would be the future of software,
because you could write them once and deploy them anywhere. As someone
who used to use a Java-based Mac app on an almost daily basis, let me
tell you: it was a disaster. Java apps didn’t behave like Mac apps.
They were ugly and awful and weird, but hey, at least they ran on the
Mac.
It’s the same way I feel about Adobe’s AIR environment today. It’s a
Flash and/or HTML-based system that lets developers write cross-
platform desktop apps. A good example of an Adobe AIR app is
TweetDeck. A lot of people like TweetDeck for Mac, and bless ’em. I
can only assume they like it because they like its feature set. It’s a
horrible Mac app, though. It’s got no menu bar to speak of, a strange
and limited preferences window, weird scroll bars... the list goes on.
It feels, in short, like a Web app that’s been mashed into a window so
that it can pretend to be a native Mac app. And—spoiler alert—that’s
because it is.
Apple doesn’t want apps that don’t feel like native iPhone apps on the
iPhone. It doesn’t want Adobe to aid developers in creating a world
where App X for iPhone and App X for Android are indistinguishable
from one another. Apple doesn’t want to introduce new iPhone features
and then watch as nobody takes advantage of them because Adobe hasn’t
updated its development system yet. Or, worse, watches as Adobe
refuses to adopt them because the other operating systems don’t
support those features.
If iPhone apps are one of Apple’s greatest assets, a lowest-common-
demoninator app world is Apple’s greatest nightmare. Apple wants the
iPhone app experience to be created using Apple’s native tools by
developers who are engaged with the platform and falling over
themselves to support Apple’s latest features. These are the
developers who were downloading and installing iPhone OS 4.0 on
Thursday and poring over the documentation, getting ready to dig in
and start updating their apps for this summer’s release."
Robert Casto
If you are an application developer, you want your application to look and behave the same everywhere. Otherwise there are differences on every platform you have to program for and that costs money. You have to train users on different versions and that costs money. And then there is the confusion of a customer trying to use the same application on different devices and things not working or looking the same. Users hated that in the past and a lot of time has been spent creating libraries, frameworks, and other tools to avoid the duplication of work. If you want something to look different, implement skins and then skin the Android, iPhone, and Blackberry versions differently. But why should a developer be required to use different tools and reimplement the same thing multiple times?
What really bothers me are the reasons for the rules they keep coming up with. If you boil them all down, it is to make money. Simple as that. Why else stop developers from creating applications any way they want? To sell more ObjectiveC tools? Why stop certain applications from being sold on the iStore? Because they stop the flow of money from another tool in some way. Do they really need to make that much more money? Couldn't they worry more about creating a great device, development environment, and use the best 3G services out there? They chose AT&T because they could bully them and make lots of money. I would think after a while that it is more important to give people what they want, not try to squeeze every possible dime out of them. Soon customers will tire of it and go elsewhere, even if the alternative is less functional. It will be more appealing because you won't be getting dime'd to death.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
--
Robert Casto
www.IWantFreeShipping.com
Find Amazon Filler Items easily!
Vince O'Sullivan
> I think you are wrong about Java on the Mac. It didn't do well because of
> Apple. They never kept up with releases and didn't bother to put much effort
> into it. You can't blame Java for that. I'm surprised Sun didn't take Apple
> to task about getting updates out there quicker.
Much as I agree with general gist of the recent threads about Apple,
you can't really blame them for having somewhere between little and no
interest in Java. The reason they supported it at all is because it
allowed them to sell Macs to developers. Apple's revenue stream is
based on their being able to sell hardware that delivers an
unparalleled UI experience and the one thing that you can about Java
is that it is a "write once, looks irredeemably, inexcusably, pug-
bloody-ugly everywhere". It's no accident that the only place Java
has been successful is on servers where you don't have to look at it.
Hopefully, now that Oracle is replacing Sun as controller of the JCP
and also that the "old guard" are resigning, we will start to see
timely progress in the evolution of the language. Perhaps even a
version seven before I retire (sometime in the 2020s).
Vince.
Christian Catchpole
Casper Bang
everywhere has always been an issue in Java. Microsoft chose not to go
there, Mono went there but opted for the native peer approach akin to
SWT. Google appears to not have been convinced by Java's UI/L&F either
given their otherwise impressive portfolio of cross-platform desktop
apps. So as much as I love bashing Apple, I can't blame Steve for
defending this particular quality criteria. Cross platform UI was a
pipe-dream that never materialized beyond good-enough. Steve does not
like good-enough and evidently that mind-set has served him well.
Fabrizio Giudici
Hash: SHA1
On 4/14/10 11:12 , Casper Bang wrote:
> I'd have to agree with this point. The lowest common denominator
> everywhere has always been an issue in Java.
Yes, but it's not a point that can't be improved. I mean, it's up to
the developer to choose a LCD approach, that hurts in some platforms,
or to work out the specific integration for every case. Yes, you have
to spend more, but you'd spend much much more if you had to develop
completely different stuff for each platform. It sounds as we're
stepping back of ten years.
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkvFi4IACgkQeDweFqgUGxd8qACgqSvT1gDvR2ucehY4RjYFXjn7
PNIAn0HAtGyvD4tmPv4Sb7aEJXA5dBcP
=r0iM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joey Gibson
I think you are wrong about Java on the Mac. It didn't do well because of Apple. They never kept up with releases and didn't bother to put much effort into it. You can't blame Java for that. I'm surprised Sun didn't take Apple to task about getting updates out there quicker.
--
Blog: http://joeygibson.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/joeygibson
FriendFeed: http://friendfeed.com/joeygibson
Facebook: http://facebook.com/joeygibson
Fabrizio Giudici
Hash: SHA1
On 4/14/10 15:05 , Joey Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Robert Casto
> <casto....@gmail.com <mailto:casto....@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I think you are wrong about Java on the Mac. It didn't do well
> because of Apple. They never kept up with releases and didn't
> bother to put much effort into it. You can't blame Java for that.
> I'm surprised Sun didn't take Apple to task about getting updates
> out there quicker.
>
>
> What really sucks about Java on the Mac (disclosure: I am a very
> happy Mac Pro massive-powerhouse-of-a-machine owner) is that Steve
> Jobs stood with McNealy at JavaOne in 2001 (I think that was the
> one; I was there, but I'm not sure of the year) and said that he
> was going to make the Mac the best platform for Java development.
> Now, I love my Mac, and now that we *finally* have Java 1.6 it's
> great. But for years, advanced Java was not as easy to do because
> of Apple's glacially slow pace at getting JDKs out the door. My
> wish for the past three years has been that Apple would just let
> Sun handle the JDK for OSX, but that never happened.
Things are very complex in this field. Indeed Sun produced the very
initial Java ports for Mac OS X, but they sucked really a lot, for
some reasons including the poor UI rendering. For this reason, Apple
decided to provide their own implementation. This made sense, and in
this case the original guy to blame for the problem was Sun. The
current best solution would be to open up the specific Mac OS X code
from Apple, so it could be integrated into the OpenJDK and contributed
from the community. But figure it out. I'd not be surprised if one of
these days Jobs woke up and decided to drop Java support on Mac OS X
entirely...
As per the year, I think it was 2001 indeed - I was there, but I don't
have personal records, still I've seen that date in other references.
The point is that at the time Apple was in desperate conditions, with
Jobs just returned as the CEO, facing with a lot of troubles, huge
architectural changes and a market penetration to reinvent. Thus, he
needed to gain support wherever he could. In the last years Apple has
been successful and doesn't need that kind of help any longer. I'd say
this is a very mean behaviour, but in the end it's marketing (not that
pursuing a style in marketing is forbidden, anyhow).
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkvFwQIACgkQeDweFqgUGxeTLACdH6scCg5EWdVu/n8d03OG3xYA
ySQAniELd8Pv6DtlDR/ySvoUEcnA4twd
=xCJY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jess Holle
Now if X had been a first class citizen on the Mac and Sun went forward with an X-based port at the time, things might have been a lot different -- assuming anyone was happy with X-based GUIs on the Mac...
--
Jess Holle
Fabrizio Giudici
Hash: SHA1
On 4/14/10 15:40 , Jess Holle wrote:
> and really cares about it
Well, it's a Sun's fault if they didn't really care about it. To tell
the true, at the time they didn't really care about the UIs in
general, changing their attitude only circa 2005, and we're still
paying for that lack of foresight.
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkvFyLkACgkQeDweFqgUGxdzVACghFCb5F+fCEmDgACj9BplZlHp
hxoAnjwoEYW3BLINupJ9OPKiCYiGgOZk
=88Us
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karsten Silz
> If you are an application developer, you want your application to look and
> behave the same everywhere.
If you're a user, you want all your applications on one platform to
look and behave the same, so that you instinctively know how to use
them. And that means apps look different on different platforms,
which is fine because the platforms are different (and look
different), too. That's why cross-platform toolkits like AIR produce
apps that look alien on every platform they run. Yes, that's cheaper
for the developer but a worse user experience.
So if I had to build a cross-platform app, I would build a web app for
desktop/mobile and add native mobile clients where I can justify the
effort (iPhone, Android). Typically, native mobile apps are a lot
less feature-rich and have a lot less design items (much less graphics/
images), so they are also a lot cheaper to do.
Karsten Silz
wrote:
> Yes, you have
> to spend more, but you'd spend much much more if you had to develop
> completely different stuff for each platform. It sounds as we're
> stepping back of ten years.
I think that the world has stepped forward in that sense - the mobile
space is hyper-competitive now, with some of the biggest companies in
the world trying to out-innovate each other (Apple, Google, Microsoft,
Nokia). It took Microsoft nearly ten years to ship four major client
OS versions (Windows 2000 - Windows 7) - Google shipped five major
Android versions in fifteen months. Apple will ships at least two
major iPhone OS version a year (and this year probably three).
So if you're Adobe (or Oracle or Microsoft), and you want to put a
cross-platform framework on top of these quick moving targets and
Windows/Mac, how do you do this? You focus on the least-common
denominator, leaving aside the platform-exclusive stuff, and you try
to get one release out each year, two max. The Sun JDK has shipped
major new functionality about every two years in the recent past, the
Flash Player about every 1.5 years, and that was just on Windows/Mac/
Linux; none of them are in "mass-production" on mobile devices. So
sure, you can build apps cheaper this way, but even if you can produce
a native look & feel, they'll probably miss a lot of the cool new API
stuff that's available to the native apps. Some platforms may allow
to build these "lesser apps" (e.g., Flash on Android), other don't
(iPhone).
Fabrizio Giudici
Hash: SHA1
On 4/14/10 17:32 , Karsten Silz wrote:
>
>
> I think that the world has stepped forward in that sense - the mobile
> space is hyper-competitive now, with some of the biggest companies in
> the world trying to out-innovate each other (Apple, Google, Microsoft,
> Nokia). It took Microsoft nearly ten years to ship four major client
> OS versions (Windows 2000 - Windows 7) - Google shipped five major
> Android versions in fifteen months. Apple will ships at least two
> major iPhone OS version a year (and this year probably three).
>
> So if you're Adobe (or Oracle or Microsoft), and you want to put a
> cross-platform framework on top of these quick moving targets and
> Windows/Mac, how do you do this? You focus on the least-common
> denominator, leaving aside the platform-exclusive stuff, and you try
> to get one release out each year, two max. The Sun JDK has shipped
> major new functionality about every two years in the recent past, the
> Flash Player about every 1.5 years, and that was just on Windows/Mac/
> Linux; none of them are in "mass-production" on mobile devices. So
> sure, you can build apps cheaper this way, but even if you can produce
> a native look & feel, they'll probably miss a lot of the cool new API
> stuff that's available to the native apps. Some platforms may allow
> to build these "lesser apps" (e.g., Flash on Android), other don't
> (iPhone).
But it's not a black - white game. For instance, not everibody needs
to use that fresh and cool feature just rolled out - otherwise we
should infer that most of those HTC Android equipments, that are still
pre-2.0, are useless.
Then, let's recall that the coding problem is twofold: language AND
runtime. The fact that we must respect the UI or use that fresh and
cool feature is 99% related to the runtime, not to the language. I
mean, from this respect at least Google offers the Java language and a
subset of the runtime at the core, making me save money and time. And
they could do even better (but deliberately chose not do to that) if
they provided API support, at least for things not related to the UI,
such as Bluetooth, Location, in a compatible form as the existing APIs
(JSR-82 etc). I could not object to the fact that I'm forced to
rewrite the UI part of an application, for the L&F fidelity. The same
holds for the idea that I could write the same stuff in Java and
having it translated to ObjC, etc...
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkvF544ACgkQeDweFqgUGxeCiwCgltP3zyVwPdf9MqiquzTk+CGD
rqsAn3eZ0CnGy5+HuTfDRwsMyD5wdod3
=4Bw7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karsten Silz
wrote:
> But it's not a black - white game. For instance, not everibody needs
> to use that fresh and cool feature just rolled out - otherwise we
> should infer that most of those HTC Android equipments, that are still
> pre-2.0, are useless.
On Android, about 70% of all devices still use 1.5/1.6, so as an
Android developer you may want to target 1.5 to have a wide audience
(http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/android-fragmentation-declines-
but-older-versions-still-rule). I don't know how much new APIs
Android provides, but iPhone OS 3.0, 3.1 and 4.0 have brought / will
bring a lot of things that are of use for pretty much every
application (multitasking, in-app email, game center, map API etc.).
I'm working on an iPhone app myself and see how few lines of code it
is to use in-app email (the same UI as sending email from the Apple
mail app), but there are still apps that I use that break out to the
mail app instead.
> Then, let's recall that the coding problem is twofold: language AND
> runtime. The fact that we must respect the UI or use that fresh and
> cool feature is 99% related to the runtime, not to the language. I
> mean, from this respect at least Google offers the Java language and a
> subset of the runtime at the core, making me save money and time. And
> they could do even better (but deliberately chose not do to that) if
> they provided API support, at least for things not related to the UI,
> such as Bluetooth, Location, in a compatible form as the existing APIs
> (JSR-82 etc). I could not object to the fact that I'm forced to
> rewrite the UI part of an application, for the L&F fidelity. The same
> holds for the idea that I could write the same stuff in Java and
> having it translated to ObjC, etc...
I don't really understand your argument here - mobile runtimes are a
lot different from desktop runtimes since they offer stuff that
doesn't exist on the desktop or isn't exposed there (location,
accelerometer, map, iTunes library playback). But for efficiency
purposed, you try to build your mobile runtime on something else so
that you don't start from scratch or maintain multiple runtimes
(iPhone OS based on Mac OS X, Android based on Linux and Java), so
developers from those environments are already familiar with.
And please, no more JCP for mobiles. If you're Google, do you really
want to wait three years until you get a new rev of a JCP API just so
you support some new hardware or fix bugs?
Fabrizio Giudici
Hash: SHA1
On 4/15/10 13:31 , Karsten Silz wrote:
>
> I don't really understand your argument here - mobile runtimes are
> a lot different from desktop runtimes since they offer stuff that
> doesn't exist on the desktop or isn't exposed there (location,
> accelerometer, map, iTunes library playback). But for efficiency
> purposed, you try to build your mobile runtime on something else
> so that you don't start from scratch or maintain multiple runtimes
> (iPhone OS based on Mac OS X, Android based on Linux and Java), so
> developers from those environments are already familiar with.
My point was that you had already Java APIs for BlueTooth and Location
and such, in JME. I understand that Google might assert that they own
API are better (don't know yet), but as we upgraded many APIs in Java
(see the collections for instance), I don't see technical reasons on
why Android doesn't support e.g. JSR-82. See also the Opinali's post
in the parallel thread about the strange jeopardization of some
packages of the Java runtime, which can't be explained with technical
reasons.
>
> And please, no more JCP for mobiles. If you're Google, do you
> really want to wait three years until you get a new rev of a JCP
> API just so you support some new hardware or fix bugs?
Agreed, that must be a lesson learned. In defense of Sun, I can say
that not only Google can learn from others' mistakes, but they are
bigger and stronger in their relationships with the phone makers.
Also, Apple is paradoxically helping Google in this strong
relationship, as it is scaring the manufacturers that might see
Android as their best chance of survival, while the scenario around
2000 was not so competitive.
PS I'd be curious to read a good written analysis on why Sun's attempt
with OpenMoko (which could be considered as an Android precursor, at
least as a marketing concept) failed: how many technological reasons,
and how many business errors.
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkvHD4MACgkQeDweFqgUGxfoMACgijg1tJC/BjTlXghMIdR7z+o8
XUwAnREQrO2brbEdlQuFb00k+xg9Kn+x
=wBZ3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steven Siebert
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/15/phonegap-framework-fine-for-app-store-development-sez-apple/
<quote>
Now, we've all been concerned about recent updates to the iPhone dev
agreement -- you haven't been sleeping and your parents are, quite
frankly, worried for your sanity. And it's a heady subject: "what is
the fate of PhoneGap in the wake of the iPhone OS 4 beta SDK?" Well,
worry no more, little one -- it seems that Jesse Macfadyen, a
contributor to the project, pinged Apple to make sure that users of
the mobile development platform wouldn't find their apps rejected
simply for using the tool. As you remember, the agreement states:
"Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or
HTML and CSS are cool), so PhoneGap -- which indeed sticks to HTML,
CSS and Javascript -- is totally safe. Now developers can get back to
having their apps rejected for any number of other silly reasons.
</quote>
Steve
Karsten Silz
wrote:
> PS I'd be curious to read a good written analysis on why Sun's attempt
> with OpenMoko (which could be considered as an Android precursor, at
> least as a marketing concept) failed: how many technological reasons,
> and how many business errors.
If I'm not mistaken, the "Java on mobile after JME" story contains
three chapters:
First was JavaFX Mobile as a full stack (including OS), built on the
remains of SavaJe, announced at JavaOne 2007. That didn't ship
because the operators didn't want to use a Sun OS on their phones (or
hand over control of their platform to Sun, as we would say today in
the days of the Apple-Adobe-Google wars).
Then JavaFX Mobile sat on top of JME and paper-launched in Mobile
World Congress 2009 with JavaFX 1.1 (and a text field as the only
native component). For the proverbial 5 billion JME phones, JavaFX
wouldn't do JIT compilation or use hardware-acceleration for graphics
and video, unlike phones built with JavaFX in mind (if I recall an
interview with Josh Marinacci correctly). That didn't ship in
meaningful numbers on phones, either.
The current state is hard to grasp - still no phones with JavaFX and
no announcements in Mobile World Congress 2010. I read somewhere that
JME and JSE are supposed to merge in the future (which would make JME
even deader than it is today, if that is possible). I guess we'll
hear something with the next JavaFX release (June?).
Between Android and the Flash Player 10.1 being free on one hand and
HTML 5 and the explosion of native mobile apps on the other hand, it's
hard to see how Oracle will make money from JavaFX Mobile.
Matt Stine
What really bothers me are the reasons for the rules they keep coming up with. If you boil them all down, it is to make money. Simple as that.
Matt
Kevin Wright
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
--
Karsten Silz
+1
Adobe wants to sell you Creative Suite for $2,500 and needs to keep
the Flash platform relevant, so they cry "Developer freedom! Apple
tyranny!" instead. Google is the world's biggest advertisement agency
(about 97% of their revenue) and successfully distracted their only
serious search competitor (Microsoft) with Android; getting more
Internet usage with more ad clicking was just a bonus IMHO.