Need your advice on the Apple behavior
Locked
123
123
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
 
|
Andrés,
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Valloud, Andres <[hidden email]> wrote: > Just wondering, how are these certificates different from those you need > on Windows? If all that matters is that the executable is signed, and > there is a way to get your certificate and sign your executable, then > all you need is to sign the VM. It wouldn't be any different than what > happens to Windows now, where VisualWorks and ObjectStudio VMs are > signed. Or is there reason to believe *every* app will have to go > through an approval process before it runs on OS X? How would that make > sense for a developer shop that cranks out several builds every day? very good example, thank you. This is just the point I wanted to make. Best, Michael _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
In reply to this post by Joseph Pelrine
This is false. Here is the word from Steve Jobs.
http://www.9to5mac.com/Jobs-mac-store-negative-ghostrider-593035053?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+9To5Mac-MacAllDay+%289+to+5+Mac+-+Apple+Intelligence%29 Cheers, Chris On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Joseph Pelrine wrote: > Looks like Apple's behaviour is getting even worse. Could this be the end of Smalltalk on the Mac? > http://rixstep.com/1/20100424,00.shtml > > Cheers > -- > Joseph Pelrine [ | ] > MetaProg GmbH > Email: [hidden email] > Web: http://www.metaprog.com > > When circumstances change, I change my views. What do you do? > - John Maynard Keynes > _______________________________________________ > Esug-list mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
... fine. :-)
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Chris Driggett <[hidden email]> wrote: > This is false. Here is the word from Steve Jobs. > > http://www.9to5mac.com/Jobs-mac-store-negative-ghostrider-593035053?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+9To5Mac-MacAllDay+%289+to+5+Mac+-+Apple+Intelligence%29 > > Cheers, > Chris > > On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Joseph Pelrine wrote: > >> Looks like Apple's behaviour is getting even worse. Could this be the end of Smalltalk on the Mac? >> http://rixstep.com/1/20100424,00.shtml >> >> Cheers >> -- >> Joseph Pelrine [ | ] >> MetaProg GmbH >> Email: [hidden email] >> Web: http://www.metaprog.com >> >> When circumstances change, I change my views. What do you do? >> - John Maynard Keynes >> _______________________________________________ >> Esug-list mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list > > _______________________________________________ > Esug-list mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list > Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
This rumor doesn't make sense. How can the Mac be a development platform if every binary you develop has to be approved by Apple?
The Mac is popular in open source circles. Requiring all binaries to go through the app store would destroy this. The fact that people take this seriously shows that Apple is making people paranoid. -Ralph _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
On 26 April 2010 01:05, Ralph Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This rumor doesn't make sense. It makes sense to show how ridiculous the iPhoneOS restrictions are. Don't you find a good analogy in it? Apple owns its OS, owns the hardware, so it can dictate the very same rules as it does for its portable OS. Isnt? > How can the Mac be a development platform if > every binary you develop has to be approved by Apple? > > The Mac is popular in open source circles. Requiring all binaries to go > through the app store would destroy this. > So what? If closing OS would bring them more profit, i think, they would do it right away, without caring about any 'circles'. Face it :) > The fact that people take this seriously shows that Apple is making people > paranoid. > > -Ralph > > _______________________________________________ > Esug-list mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Haupt-3
Hi,
Engadget features a press release from Apple - it is primarily on Flash and why Apple won't accept it on their mobile devices, but there's also something in it for this community: ----- We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor's platforms. ----- Full release at: http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/29/steve-jobs-publishes-some-thoughts-on-flash-many-many-thou/ Best, Michael _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
This is brightly clear. They want software to fully support their
hardware, which is understandable from their point of view. We can understand they want to distinguish from other hardware, I think it is the bare bone business line of Apple (Marque de fabrique), no? Hilaire Michael Haupt a écrit : > This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross > platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements > from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported > platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common > denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where > developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements > because they are not available on our competitor's platforms. _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Haupt-3
Actual article is at http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash
I don't read anything it in that prevents Scratch, EToys, BYOB, or Squeak from running on the platform. http://byob.berkeley.edu/ This letter interesting enough doesn't touch on the issue of interpreted languages which is what nailed Scratch. I'll still take the viewpoint that Apple is reflecting on what to do next, now they've formally outlined their thoughts on Flash, then I hope we'll hear something about their stance on interpreted languages. On 2010-04-29, at 8:47 AM, Michael Haupt wrote: > Hi, > > Engadget features a press release from Apple - it is primarily on > Flash and why Apple won't accept it on their mobile devices, but > there's also something in it for this community: > -- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]> Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com =========================================================================== _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
smime.p7s (3K)
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
John,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:16 PM, John M McIntosh <[hidden email]> wrote: > I don't read anything it in that prevents Scratch, EToys, BYOB, or Squeak from running on the platform. > http://byob.berkeley.edu/ how about "letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer"? > This letter interesting enough doesn't touch on the issue of interpreted languages which is what nailed Scratch. I think a VM could easily be deemed such a "third party layer". Not that I share the conclusion ... Best, Michael _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
In reply to this post by Hilaire Fernandes-4
Den 29. apr. 2010 kl. 18.30 skrev Fernandes <[hidden email]>: > This is brightly clear. They want software to fully support their > hardware, which is understandable from their point of view. I have to admit, I'm sort of happy Intel/AMD/ARM etc. don't have the same point of view... Cheers, Henry _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Haupt-3
On 04/29/10 08:47, Michael Haupt wrote:
> Hi, > > Engadget features a press release from Apple - it is primarily on > Flash and why Apple won't accept it on their mobile devices, but > there's also something in it for this community: > > ----- > We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of > software come between the platform and the developer ultimately > results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress > of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party > development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of > platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the > new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if > and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. > > This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross > platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements > from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported > platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common > denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where > developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements > because they are not available on our competitor's platforms. How very "1984". The path to freedom of choice for developers is to limit their choice to only Apple tools. Newspeak in the original sense. Steve's comments make *some* sense in the context of closed development environments like Flash, but can't really be applied to completely open environments like Squeak and Pharo. Let's hope Apple recognizes the difference. Regards, -Martin _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
In reply to this post by johnmci
As clearly written in the article as I understand it, the matter is not
about interpreted language but about developing software for their hardware platform without a sufficient level of specialization (or without taking advantage of the specific hardware specification). Therefore I don't see how this is limited to Flash and why, given this scheme of though, Smalltalk should not be severely hit. John M McIntosh a écrit : > Actual article is at http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash > > I don't read anything it in that prevents Scratch, EToys, BYOB, or Squeak from running on the platform. > http://byob.berkeley.edu/ > > This letter interesting enough doesn't touch on the issue of interpreted languages which is what nailed Scratch. > > I'll still take the viewpoint that Apple is reflecting on what to do next, now they've formally outlined their thoughts > on Flash, then I hope we'll hear something about their stance on interpreted languages. > > On 2010-04-29, at 8:47 AM, Michael Haupt wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Engadget features a press release from Apple - it is primarily on >> Flash and why Apple won't accept it on their mobile devices, but >> there's also something in it for this community: >> > > -- > =========================================================================== > John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]> Twitter: squeaker68882 > Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com > =========================================================================== > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Esug-list mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
In reply to this post by Henrik Sperre Johansen
If you take a while and think about the line Apple is following, they
can't take the average line, otherwise they will just die killed by the concurrence. They have to show their difference by outstanding quality, and it is related to exploit at best *their* hardware and software bases. I don't think it is related to forcing developer to use their tools -- even if the result is the same. John, how do you think Steve Jobs may fell seeing the slowness of a Scratch project on iPhone or iPad. I think he will feel it gives a bad image to its toys, right? It will be hard to go against this perception. (I think DrGeo may be equally slow on a iPad, I am not offending your work) In the other way, we may take some reflection on our community. Many resources has been spend on Squeak related projects (Sophie, Etoys, Croquet,...), but yet the capalization of these resources was dramatically bad in core Squeak, kind-of waste, as it ended in multiple forks... Hilaire Henrik Johansen a écrit : > > Den 29. apr. 2010 kl. 18.30 skrev Fernandes <[hidden email]>: > >> This is brightly clear. They want software to fully support their >> hardware, which is understandable from their point of view. > > I have to admit, I'm sort of happy Intel/AMD/ARM etc. don't have the > same point of view... > > Cheers, > Henry > _______________________________________________ > Esug-list mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
AW: [Esug-list] Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
In reply to this post by Hilaire Fernandes-4
I don't read "platform" as "hardware". In my (private) opinion Apple should let it be up to the decision of the developers and their customers whether or not they want to "adopt new features". All that I can read of it is: this is our platform and we want maximum control. Either you buy from us or ... you don't.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Fernandes Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. April 2010 18:30 An: ESUG Mailing list Betreff: Re: [Esug-list] Need your advice on the Apple behavior This is brightly clear. They want software to fully support their hardware, which is understandable from their point of view. We can understand they want to distinguish from other hardware, I think it is the bare bone business line of Apple (Marque de fabrique), no? Hilaire Michael Haupt a écrit : > This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross > platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements > from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported > platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common > denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where > developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements > because they are not available on our competitor's platforms. _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
RE: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
> Michael Haupt a écrit :
> > This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross > > platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements > > from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported > > platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common > > denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where > > developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements > > because they are not available on our competitor's platforms. I think the fate of 3rd party intermediate layers may depend on whether or not they are open to extension by application developers. If they are not open, e.g. Flash, application developers really are restricted to what the intermediate layer decides to support. If they are open, e.g. Squeak, application developers can extend the intermediate layer to support new Apple features, or to improve existing support for those features. If there are multiple layers, e.g. Scratch app running on Scratch running on Squeak, we get back into tricky interpretations; probably all intermediate layers would have to be open. Even if Scratch counts as not open, because developers of Scratch apps presumably have little realistic chance of being able to develop it, it might still be OK. If Scratch apps can be developed on the iPad, as opposed to being developed elsewhere and just run on the iPad, that would hopefully make them close enough to "data" that they could be compared to Excel files. An Excel file is sort of an application and sort of data, but generally considered as data. That then makes Scratch the application, and Squeak the only intermediate layer. All this is of course up to Apple, not our interpretation, but at least things look a little brighter than at the start. Steve _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
AW: [Esug-list] Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
I don't see room for this line of reasoning. Apple clearly states that they do not want any intermediate layer because that puts their - i. e. Apple's - ability to innovate according to their time schedule at risk. The risk is the same whether or not the intermediate layer is open to extension.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Steven Kelly Gesendet: Freitag, 30. April 2010 11:11 An: ESUG Mailing list Betreff: RE: [Esug-list] Need your advice on the Apple behavior > Michael Haupt a écrit : > > This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross > > platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements > > from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported > > platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common > > denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where > > developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements > > because they are not available on our competitor's platforms. I think the fate of 3rd party intermediate layers may depend on whether or not they are open to extension by application developers. If they are not open, e.g. Flash, application developers really are restricted to what the intermediate layer decides to support. If they are open, e.g. Squeak, application developers can extend the intermediate layer to support new Apple features, or to improve existing support for those features. If there are multiple layers, e.g. Scratch app running on Scratch running on Squeak, we get back into tricky interpretations; probably all intermediate layers would have to be open. Even if Scratch counts as not open, because developers of Scratch apps presumably have little realistic chance of being able to develop it, it might still be OK. If Scratch apps can be developed on the iPad, as opposed to being developed elsewhere and just run on the iPad, that would hopefully make them close enough to "data" that they could be compared to Excel files. An Excel file is sort of an application and sort of data, but generally considered as data. That then makes Scratch the application, and Squeak the only intermediate layer. All this is of course up to Apple, not our interpretation, but at least things look a little brighter than at the start. Steve _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
RE: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
If Apple add a new widget, existing apps won't use it yet. If an app developer wants to use it, he can do so on his own timescale if he is using Apple's "direct" development tools, or if he is using an open intermediate layer, but not it he is using a closed intermediate layer. Obviously the open intermediate layer adds an extra bit of latency, but then if it's Smalltalk it'll be faster to make the change in Squeak and your app than it would be just to change a native app :-)
But as I said, it doesn't really matter whether WE like this line of reasoning. We could however try to sell it to Steve Jobs... Steve > I don't see room for this line of reasoning. Apple clearly states that > they do not want any intermediate layer because that puts their - i. e. > Apple's - ability to innovate according to their time schedule at risk. > The risk is the same whether or not the intermediate layer is open to > extension. > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [hidden email] [mailto:esug-list- > [hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Steven Kelly > Gesendet: Freitag, 30. April 2010 11:11 > An: ESUG Mailing list > Betreff: RE: [Esug-list] Need your advice on the Apple behavior > > > Michael Haupt a écrit : > > > This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross > > > platform development tool. The third party may not adopt > enhancements > > > from one platform unless they are available on all of their > supported > > > platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common > > > denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome > where > > > developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements > > > because they are not available on our competitor's platforms. > > I think the fate of 3rd party intermediate layers may depend on whether > or not they are open to extension by application developers. If they > are not open, e.g. Flash, application developers really are restricted > to what the intermediate layer decides to support. If they are open, > e.g. Squeak, application developers can extend the intermediate layer > to support new Apple features, or to improve existing support for those > features. > > If there are multiple layers, e.g. Scratch app running on Scratch > running on Squeak, we get back into tricky interpretations; probably > all intermediate layers would have to be open. Even if Scratch counts > as not open, because developers of Scratch apps presumably have little > realistic chance of being able to develop it, it might still be OK. If > Scratch apps can be developed on the iPad, as opposed to being > developed elsewhere and just run on the iPad, that would hopefully make > them close enough to "data" that they could be compared to Excel files. > An Excel file is sort of an application and sort of data, but generally > considered as data. That then makes Scratch the application, and Squeak > the only intermediate layer. > > All this is of course up to Apple, not our interpretation, but at least > things look a little brighter than at the start. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > Esug-list mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list > _______________________________________________ > Esug-list mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
Re: Need your advice on the Apple behavior
|
|
On 30 April 2010 12:23, Steven Kelly <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If Apple add a new widget, existing apps won't use it yet. If an app developer wants to use it, he can do so on his own timescale if he is using Apple's "direct" development tools, or if he is using an open intermediate layer, but not it he is using a closed intermediate layer. Obviously the open intermediate layer adds an extra bit of latency, but then if it's Smalltalk it'll be faster to make the change in Squeak and your app than it would be just to change a native app :-) > > But as I said, it doesn't really matter whether WE like this line of reasoning. We could however try to sell it to Steve Jobs... > The thing is, that innovation happens not only in Apple's office. And the formula like 'i can't use X on Y because Y's company proprietary software not supports its yet' can be attributed to Apple house in same way as to others. So, such kind of reasoning is very weak, as to me. Objectively, there is always a lag between a new product version release with new cool features and a software, which starts using them. If they want to minimize this lag then best way is to make a system open. Release often , even beta software and let partners & developer houses test it and help you improve it, while at same time get them aquainted with new features. But if you keep your system close from other's eyes, don't blame anyone that people don't start using new system functionality once you released it. > Steve > >> I don't see room for this line of reasoning. Apple clearly states that >> they do not want any intermediate layer because that puts their - i. e. >> Apple's - ability to innovate according to their time schedule at risk. >> The risk is the same whether or not the intermediate layer is open to >> extension. >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: [hidden email] [mailto:esug-list- >> [hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Steven Kelly >> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. April 2010 11:11 >> An: ESUG Mailing list >> Betreff: RE: [Esug-list] Need your advice on the Apple behavior >> >> > Michael Haupt a écrit : >> > > This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross >> > > platform development tool. The third party may not adopt >> enhancements >> > > from one platform unless they are available on all of their >> supported >> > > platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common >> > > denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome >> where >> > > developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements >> > > because they are not available on our competitor's platforms. >> >> I think the fate of 3rd party intermediate layers may depend on whether >> or not they are open to extension by application developers. If they >> are not open, e.g. Flash, application developers really are restricted >> to what the intermediate layer decides to support. If they are open, >> e.g. Squeak, application developers can extend the intermediate layer >> to support new Apple features, or to improve existing support for those >> features. >> >> If there are multiple layers, e.g. Scratch app running on Scratch >> running on Squeak, we get back into tricky interpretations; probably >> all intermediate layers would have to be open. Even if Scratch counts >> as not open, because developers of Scratch apps presumably have little >> realistic chance of being able to develop it, it might still be OK. If >> Scratch apps can be developed on the iPad, as opposed to being >> developed elsewhere and just run on the iPad, that would hopefully make >> them close enough to "data" that they could be compared to Excel files. >> An Excel file is sort of an application and sort of data, but generally >> considered as data. That then makes Scratch the application, and Squeak >> the only intermediate layer. >> >> All this is of course up to Apple, not our interpretation, but at least >> things look a little brighter than at the start. >> >> Steve >> _______________________________________________ >> Esug-list mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list >> _______________________________________________ >> Esug-list mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list > _______________________________________________ > Esug-list mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list |
«
Return to ESUG
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |