Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.

> Btw, there is a pretty vibrant jailbreak community where you can run
> whatever you want on the devices.
> - Stephen
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I found it a bit depressive. I can do one little conclusion from it:
>> It sounds like only Steve Jobs reserves the right to make great
>> things, while others should sit and wait, until he will generously
>> allow them to use it. It also seems like all developers in the world,
>> already stamped by his “THIS IS S___!”  red stamp, without even
>> noticed. So, no matter what they do, or how great their ideas is, its
>> worthless, because Great Steve didn't blessed it.
>>
>> So, i feel a big disdain, because the above shows only an egocentric,
>> childish and ill-minded nature of Apple's head.
>> - Hear plebs, a made a new iThing for you. Eat my flesh, drink my blood.
>
>
>
>

Never mind. HP tablet is just few months away. Ok, it runs Windows 7 but

>
> Em 21-04-2010 19:55, Igor Stasenko escreveu:
>> On 22 April 2010 00:57, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21.04.2010, at 22:56, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM, John M McIntosh
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG  etc), to stay claim
>>>> and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email
>>>> exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a
>>>> further decision or statement.
>>>>
>>>> Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now
>>>> time to consider what to do next.
>>>>
>>>> So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to
>>>> do something.
>>>>
>>>> At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the
>>>> problem in a meaningful manner.
>>>> Suggestions are welcome.
>>>>
>>> Port to Android asap.  Competitive pressure can make Apple move.  I'm not
>>> sure about anything else.
>>>
>>> Apple will move eventually. I found this illuminating about their motives:
>>> http://www.asktog.com/columns/082iPad&Mac.html
>>>
>> I found it a bit depressive. I can do one little conclusion from it:
>> It sounds like only Steve Jobs reserves the right to make great
>> things, while others should sit and wait, until he will generously
>> allow them to use it. It also seems like all developers in the world,
>> already stamped by his “THIS IS S___!”  red stamp, without even
>> noticed. So, no matter what they do, or how great their ideas is, its
>> worthless, because Great Steve didn't blessed it.
>>
>> So, i feel a big disdain, because the above shows only an egocentric,
>> childish and ill-minded nature of Apple's head.
>> - Hear plebs, a made a new iThing for you. Eat my flesh, drink my blood.
>>
>>
>>> - Bert -
>>>
>>>
>>
> Never mind. HP tablet is just few months away. Ok, it runs Windows 7 but
> I guess it will also possible install Linux... So a tablet that can make
> use of Windows & Linux and people will be free to develop/install/use
> whatever suit their needs. Oh... and that without messing WiFi networks
> (hopefully).
>
> CdAB

> (...)
> The HP seems underwhelming.
>
> The NotionInk Adam seems much more exciting, with a Pixel Qi display, dual-core ARM, NVIDIA graphics, running Android:
>
> http://www.notionink.in/
>
>
> - Bert -
>
>
>
>
>  

>
> On 2010-04-22, at 6:22 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> I still naively believe that if all the programmers of the dynamic language put a logo with apple and a black skull on their
>> web page. Apple will get a bad press.
>
>
> Yes well I don't think that will achieve much.
>
> Personally I think that the people here involved in the education & university domains need to write actual paper based letters on their
> institution's letter head and mail them to the Apple education reps for their countries stating their concern about Apple's legal agreements
> that appear to lockout the iPad for extraordinary use in the computer science curriculum.  
>
> This involves passionately arguing for the ability to program, or teach in something other than C, C++, Obj-C or Javascript, I"m sure others are
> more capable than me in composing that, as a software engineer my words aren't worth much, but I think computer science departments should
> be voicing their concern on the direction where things appear to be going.
>
> --
> ===========================================================================
> 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

>
> On 2010-04-22, at 11:43 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> if we start to make the intersection between smalltalk and university and education
>> then we will end up to nothing. zero ok one or two, now individually
>> we can take the responsibility to say what we think about apple attitude and I will do it for myself.
>>
>>
>> Stef
>
> It's not just intersection of Smalltalk,  let me ramble, APL, Cobol, Fortran, Lisp, Basic, Lua , Ruby, Perl, Simula, Algol68, PL/I  no doubt there are a few
> more, that is what is at risk.
>
> Or do educational institutes only dabble and teach in C++ still?
>
> --
> ===========================================================================
> John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
> ===========================================================================
>
>
>
>
>

> It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the
> PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the
> smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows).  Now, I'm not defending
> Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions
> are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain
> the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software.
>  I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language
> born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a
> Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
>
> It's a much simpler problem if they only have to worry about breaking
> Objective-C and web apps all using official, documented and published
> APIs moving forward than if they have to worry about a mixed bag of
> apps all using various idiosyncratic technologies accessing
> undocumented APIs.  As for the AppStore, it's a practical solution to
> the problem of viruses and malware (there is certainly demand for
> computers that just work, where viruses and malware are not an
> issue...the virus problem in Windows has been quite successful in
> fostering an appetite for that).  The AppStore not an ideal solution
> to that problem, but they are having to work with 40 year old
> operating system technology here.  The AppStore has also been quite
> successful in dealing with some of the peripheral problems software
> publishers face (like distribution and payment processing) and in so
> doing has created a viable business model for thousands of small
> software publishers.
>
> I don't mean to come across sounding like an Apple apologist, but the
> arguments here seem to be very one sided.  I simply want to express an
> alternative view.
>
> Of course, having said all of this, I would still like to be able to
> use Smalltalk to write apps for my iPhone.
>
> - Stephen
>
>

>
> Stephen Pair wrote:
>> It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows).  Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software.  I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
>>
>> It's a much simpler problem if they only have to worry about breaking Objective-C and web apps all using official, documented and published APIs moving forward than if they have to worry about a mixed bag of apps all using various idiosyncratic technologies accessing undocumented APIs.  As for the AppStore, it's a practical solution to the problem of viruses and malware (there is certainly demand for computers that just work, where viruses and malware are not an issue...the virus problem in Windows has been quite successful in fostering an appetite for that).  The AppStore not an ideal solution to that problem, but they are having to work with 40 year old operating system technology here.  The AppStore has also been quite successful in dealing with some of the peripheral problems software publishers face (like distribution and payment processing) and in so doing has created a viable business model for thousands of small software publishers.
>>
>> I don't mean to come across sounding like an Apple apologist, but the arguments here seem to be very one sided.  I simply want to express an alternative view.
>>
>> Of course, having said all of this, I would still like to be able to use Smalltalk to write apps for my iPhone.
>>
>> - Stephen
>>
>>
> All of what you say is quite possibly true. HOWEVER, Scratch on the iPhone isn't really Squeak on the iphone, but a very tiny subset of squeak's capabilities exposed to grade school programmers. As far as I know, there's no way in scratch to directly access ANY iphone capability. Its all done in the scratch programming sandbox, so the ban on Scratch is just an overly literal reading of Apple's ban on 3rd party IDEs.

> On 22.04.2010, at 23:15, Lawson English wrote:
>  
>> Stephen Pair wrote:
>>    
>>> It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows).  Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software.  I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
>>>
>>> It's a much simpler problem if they only have to worry about breaking Objective-C and web apps all using official, documented and published APIs moving forward than if they have to worry about a mixed bag of apps all using various idiosyncratic technologies accessing undocumented APIs.  As for the AppStore, it's a practical solution to the problem of viruses and malware (there is certainly demand for computers that just work, where viruses and malware are not an issue...the virus problem in Windows has been quite successful in fostering an appetite for that).  The AppStore not an ideal solution to that problem, but they are having to work with 40 year old operating system technology here.  The AppStore has also been quite successful in dealing with some of the peripheral problems software publishers face (like distribution and payment processing) and in so doing has created a viable business model for thousands of small software publishers.
>>>
>>> I don't mean to come across sounding like an Apple apologist, but the arguments here seem to be very one sided.  I simply want to express an alternative view.
>>>
>>> Of course, having said all of this, I would still like to be able to use Smalltalk to write apps for my iPhone.
>>>
>>> - Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> All of what you say is quite possibly true. HOWEVER, Scratch on the iPhone isn't really Squeak on the iphone, but a very tiny subset of squeak's capabilities exposed to grade school programmers. As far as I know, there's no way in scratch to directly access ANY iphone capability. Its all done in the scratch programming sandbox, so the ban on Scratch is just an overly literal reading of Apple's ban on 3rd party IDEs.
>>    
>
> The banning of Scratch has *nothing* to do with the fact that it's written in Squeak. All the other Squeak apps are still in the app store.
>
> Apples language restriction only applies to iPhone OS 4. That is no going to be released before the summer.
>
> Apple has not removed a single app because of what language it was implemented in. Yet.
>
> Now I neither like the removal of Scratch nor the possible future restriction of languages. But lets keep to the facts.
>
> Maybe we could see a raise of hands who is actually working on a Squeak app for the iPhone / iPad?
>
>
>