Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
Locked
1234
1234
Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
 
|
On 23.04.2010, at 00:01, Lawson English wrote:
> > Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> 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? >> >> >> > > I'm not sure if you were clarifying what I wrote or correcting something I said the wrong way... > > Either way, I don't quite see how what you said is any different than what I said. You wrote "the ban on Scratch is just an overly literal reading of Apple's ban on 3rd party IDEs". No, the ban has nothing to do with 3rd party IDEs. That rule isn't even in effect yet. Scratch was banned because it *downloads scripts and runs them* as part of scratch projects. You should read John's open letter where he correctly argues that this effectively prevents even dynamic ebooks. Which the iPad would be a superb platform for, if it wasn't for those arbitrary restrictions. - Bert - |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
In reply to this post by Josh Gargus
Yes, I agree it's funny. But remember ... Apple engineered a new battery for the iPhone to make the impossible iPhone well, possible. :-)
- Darius
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen Pair
2010/4/22 Stephen Pair <[hidden email]> CdABIt'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). They have monopoly over platform (iPhone and iPad) and until other tablets reach market they have monopoly over tablet market. Suppose Job's idea flourishes and Microsoft decides next version of Windows will load applications via MicrosoftStore only and that they decide which applications are fit for Windows and which aren't and, more than that, what content is appropriate for Microsoft attendance and what is not (like well... no P2P, no Flash, multimedia only via ... you got the picture). Suppose everybody let this frog go down our throats and Jobs think: "well, it would be nice if all MacOS X applications could only be loaded through AppleStore..." The trouble with the iPhone/iPad marketing model goes far beyond Apple controlling things that can crash iPhone/iPad. It means that us, as developers, have to beg blessings to have the applications we develop available for a given platform; that we submit ourselves to the scrutiny of someone else than the customers or each country legal system and even so, "platform god" is free to decide that your application is not "appropriate" to his platform anymore and just throw you out of market. But it is really worse than that because, if your application let you upload something "filth" like Kama Sutra (wtf) then both your application and content can be banished from god's own store. Btw, Bukovisky works were banished from AppleStore (among many other authors). But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... yeah I think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem.
|
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
In reply to this post by Josh Gargus
It's a Cortex clone. (ARM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A4 On Apr 22, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Josh Gargus <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Apr 22, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Darius Clarke wrote: > >> I like the theory that the iPad CPU is not an ARM copy, but much more powerful, running an ARM emulator. > > I like the theory too, because it makes me laugh. I bet it would be *awesome* for battery life. Come on, let's not be silly. :-) > > Cheers, > Josh > > |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
In reply to this post by CdAB63
On 23 April 2010 02:44, casimiro barreto <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > 2010/4/22 Stephen Pair <[hidden email]> >> >> 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). > > They have monopoly over platform (iPhone and iPad) and until other tablets > reach market they have monopoly over tablet market. > > Suppose Job's idea flourishes and Microsoft decides next version of Windows > will load applications via MicrosoftStore only and that they decide which > applications are fit for Windows and which aren't and, more than that, what > content is appropriate for Microsoft attendance and what is not (like > well... no P2P, no Flash, multimedia only via ... you got the picture). > > Suppose everybody let this frog go down our throats and Jobs think: "well, > it would be nice if all MacOS X applications could only be loaded through > AppleStore..." > > The trouble with the iPhone/iPad marketing model goes far beyond Apple > controlling things that can crash iPhone/iPad. It means that us, as > developers, have to beg blessings to have the applications we develop > available for a given platform; that we submit ourselves to the scrutiny of > someone else than the customers or each country legal system and even so, > "platform god" is free to decide that your application is not "appropriate" > to his platform anymore and just throw you out of market. > > But it is really worse than that because, if your application let you upload > something "filth" like Kama Sutra (wtf) then both your application and > content can be banished from god's own store. Btw, Bukovisky works were > banished from AppleStore (among many other authors). > > But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking > iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep > "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... > yeah I think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem. > Yup. And they deserving it: http://linuxoniphone.blogspot.com/2010/04/ive-been-working-on-this-quietly-in.html -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
Em 22-04-2010 21:23, Igor Stasenko escreveu:
> (...) > Yup. And they deserving it: > > http://linuxoniphone.blogspot.com/2010/04/ive-been-working-on-this-quietly-in.html > > > > Yes. But if you look at product licensing it's not allowed to install android in an iPhone. That leads to the question: your iPhone is yours or is it Apple's & you have just a "license to use" the device... So, I prefer to purchase a native Android phone. CdAB |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
On 23 April 2010 05:15, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto
<[hidden email]> wrote: > Em 22-04-2010 21:23, Igor Stasenko escreveu: >> (...) >> Yup. And they deserving it: >> >> http://linuxoniphone.blogspot.com/2010/04/ive-been-working-on-this-quietly-in.html >> >> >> >> > Yes. But if you look at product licensing it's not allowed to install > android in an iPhone. That leads to the question: your iPhone is yours > or is it Apple's & you have just a "license to use" the device... So, I > prefer to purchase a native Android phone. > Its up to those who using this expensive toy. My mobile is maybe 8 years old, cost me 50 bucks.. and i barely using it for calls, because i usually contact with people using mail :) > CdAB > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
> On 23 April 2010 02:44, casimiro barreto <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> 2010/4/22 Stephen Pair <[hidden email]> >>> >>> 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). >> >> They have monopoly over platform (iPhone and iPad) and until other tablets >> reach market they have monopoly over tablet market. The iPhone is their platform, they have every right to restrict it in any way they want. As long as there a viable alternatives (Android, Blackberry, Windows), they do not have a monopoly. Nothing is forcing you or me to buy into that platform or have anything to do with it. And, there are plenty of alternatives coming to market for touch tablets. >> Suppose Job's idea flourishes and Microsoft decides next version of Windows >> will load applications via MicrosoftStore only and that they decide which >> applications are fit for Windows and which aren't and, more than that, what >> content is appropriate for Microsoft attendance and what is not (like >> well... no P2P, no Flash, multimedia only via ... you got the picture). Well, I would say that the idea already is flourishing and I would be surprised if Microsoft didn't copy it. >> >> Suppose everybody let this frog go down our throats and Jobs think: "well, >> it would be nice if all MacOS X applications could only be loaded through >> AppleStore..." This is a very likely possibility...I think there are a lot of people that are so paranoid about viruses, identity theft, malware and the like that they would welcome such systems. In fact, I believe Google recognizes this and the ChromeOS and its security model is evidence of that fact. My own parents were so scared to death about identity theft that they wanted me to setup a dedicated Linux system for them that they could use exclusively for their online banking activities. They wanted Linux because they knew it wasn't the target of so many viruses, keyboard loggers and botnets like Windows. >> >> The trouble with the iPhone/iPad marketing model goes far beyond Apple >> controlling things that can crash iPhone/iPad. It means that us, as >> developers, have to beg blessings to have the applications we develop >> available for a given platform; that we submit ourselves to the scrutiny of >> someone else than the customers or each country legal system and even so, >> "platform god" is free to decide that your application is not "appropriate" >> to his platform anymore and just throw you out of market. >> >> But it is really worse than that because, if your application let you upload >> something "filth" like Kama Sutra (wtf) then both your application and >> content can be banished from god's own store. Btw, Bukovisky works were >> banished from AppleStore (among many other authors). >> >> But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking >> iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep >> "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... >> yeah I think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem. >> I view Apple as a trusted third party in a trust network. Unfortunately, they are just about the only trusted third party for native applications. That needs to change, and I believe it will change (whether Apple likes it or not). Such third parties that review and certify applications will become increasingly important. As a software publisher myself and someone that has never (to my knowledge) had any real problems with viruses and malware, I find myself increasingly reluctant to install any software that someone (a trusted third party) hasn't thoroughly vetted for any malicious payloads...it's simply too risky not to take such precautions. I wish it weren't the case, but it is the reality in which we find ourselves. What we desperately need are operating systems and languages that give first class treatment to these issues of security and that democratize these kinds of trusted third parties (the AppStore is a good idea, but there needs to be hundreds of them, not one or a few). - Stephen > |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
On 23 April 2010 06:52, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> On 23 April 2010 02:44, casimiro barreto <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 2010/4/22 Stephen Pair <[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> 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). >>> >>> They have monopoly over platform (iPhone and iPad) and until other tablets >>> reach market they have monopoly over tablet market. > > The iPhone is their platform, they have every right to restrict it in any way they want. As long as there a viable alternatives (Android, Blackberry, Windows), they do not have a monopoly. Nothing is forcing you or me to buy into that platform or have anything to do with it. And, there are plenty of alternatives coming to market for touch tablets. > >>> Suppose Job's idea flourishes and Microsoft decides next version of Windows >>> will load applications via MicrosoftStore only and that they decide which >>> applications are fit for Windows and which aren't and, more than that, what >>> content is appropriate for Microsoft attendance and what is not (like >>> well... no P2P, no Flash, multimedia only via ... you got the picture). > > Well, I would say that the idea already is flourishing and I would be surprised if Microsoft didn't copy it. > >>> >>> Suppose everybody let this frog go down our throats and Jobs think: "well, >>> it would be nice if all MacOS X applications could only be loaded through >>> AppleStore..." > > This is a very likely possibility...I think there are a lot of people that are so paranoid about viruses, identity theft, malware and the like that they would welcome such systems. In fact, I believe Google recognizes this and the ChromeOS and its security model is evidence of that fact. My own parents were so scared to death about identity theft that they wanted me to setup a dedicated Linux system for them that they could use exclusively for their online banking activities. They wanted Linux because they knew it wasn't the target of so many viruses, keyboard loggers and botnets like Windows. > >>> >>> The trouble with the iPhone/iPad marketing model goes far beyond Apple >>> controlling things that can crash iPhone/iPad. It means that us, as >>> developers, have to beg blessings to have the applications we develop >>> available for a given platform; that we submit ourselves to the scrutiny of >>> someone else than the customers or each country legal system and even so, >>> "platform god" is free to decide that your application is not "appropriate" >>> to his platform anymore and just throw you out of market. >>> >>> But it is really worse than that because, if your application let you upload >>> something "filth" like Kama Sutra (wtf) then both your application and >>> content can be banished from god's own store. Btw, Bukovisky works were >>> banished from AppleStore (among many other authors). >>> >>> But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking >>> iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep >>> "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... >>> yeah I think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem. >>> > > I view Apple as a trusted third party in a trust network. Unfortunately, they are just about the only trusted third party for native applications. That needs to change, and I believe it will change (whether Apple likes it or not). Such third parties that review and certify applications will become increasingly important. As a software publisher myself and someone that has never (to my knowledge) had any real problems with viruses and malware, I find myself increasingly reluctant to install any software that someone (a trusted third party) hasn't thoroughly vetted for any malicious payloads...it's simply too risky not to take such precautions. I wish it weren't the case, but it is the reality in which we find ourselves. > > What we desperately need are operating systems and languages that give first class treatment to these issues of security and that democratize these kinds of trusted third parties (the AppStore is a good idea, but there needs to be hundreds of them, not one or a few). > Stephen, this is a valid and objective view of security issues, which Apple seems wants to solve. Indeed, i could imagine, that they physically unable to verify every piece of software which people submitting to their store and therefore putting such barriers, like 'no downloadable 3rd party content and no interpreters'. But AFAIK, there are a long existed measures for it, like signed & verified security certificates and so on. So, why they not using such systems in a first place, why they manually reviewing every app instead? As long as content comes from a verified & trusted provider, there is no point to enforce the rules like using only C++ or Javascript in their product. If all content is properly digitally signed, then even in case of problems, they will know who is responsible for it, and therefore could take a countermeasures. But instead, their way of handling the stuff got stuck somewhere in the middle of 90's. > - Stephen >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote: > But AFAIK, there are a long existed measures for it, like signed & > verified security certificates and so on. > So, why they not using such systems in a first place, why they > manually reviewing every app instead? > As long as content comes from a verified & trusted provider, there is > no point to enforce the rules like using only C++ or Javascript in > their product. > If all content is properly digitally signed, then even in case of > problems, they will know who is responsible for it, and therefore > could take a countermeasures. > But instead, their way of handling the stuff got stuck somewhere in > the middle of 90's. I agree with this...they certainly could have pushed the state of the art further in this regard. They probably chose a less ambitious approach to make sure they could ship something rather than bite off more than they could chew. In any case I expect better approaches will materialize as competitors catch up with Apple (and maybe Apple themselves will improve as people make their dissatisfaction known and those competitors come up with better solutions). - Stephen > >>> >> >> > |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen Pair
Stephen Pair <[hidden email]> writes:
> 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. What an argument. They's had done a much better job to have one "useful and official API" with support. But Apple goes further, they prohibit every competition on apple os X. E.g just try to not use the Apple gcc for some work even on Mac OS X. You will get cauhgt while getting into exceptions and that's very soon you encounter that. I do not have troubles at all with Objective-C but one. It's one platform language, and you can not use much let's say in Gnustep and/or elswwhere. And there is but one IDE for it... So I know of many Smalltalks which do work on at least three different platforms and I surely would like to use this APIs on IPhone or whatever also. 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). C as practical solution for not having viruses? or what do you mean with this? > > 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. Apple has decided they do not want competion, so that's the one and only conclusion one can draw. People should use their tools and nothing else. Now tell anything about vendor-lockin for MS. Compared with that is Microsoft an OSS corporatin... > > Of course, having said all of this, I would still like to be able to use > Smalltalk to write apps for my iPhone. Apple should not bother about the implemenntation language nor the content. It seems they are doing both, and so they definitly are the bad guys this time. I hope they get put into the ground for that. Friedrich -- Q-Software Solutions GmbH; Sitz: Bruchsal; Registergericht: Mannheim Registriernummer: HRB232138; Geschaeftsfuehrer: Friedrich Dominicus |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
In reply to this post by CdAB63
casimiro barreto <[hidden email]> writes:
> > Suppose Job's idea flourishes and Microsoft decides next version of Windows > will load applications via MicrosoftStore only and that they decide which > applications are fit for Windows and which aren't and, more than that, what > content is appropriate for Microsoft attendance and what is not (like well... > no P2P, no Flash, multimedia only via ... you got the picture). You are damn right. > > The trouble with the iPhone/iPad marketing model goes far beyond Apple > controlling things that can crash iPhone/iPad. It means that us, as developers, > have to beg blessings to have the applications we develop available for a given > platform; that we submit ourselves to the scrutiny of someone else than the > customers or each country legal system and even so, "platform god" is free to > decide that your application is not "appropriate" to his platform anymore and > just throw you out of market. Exactly. > > But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking > iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep > "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... yeah I > think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem. Again I agree fully. -- Q-Software Solutions GmbH; Sitz: Bruchsal; Registergericht: Mannheim Registriernummer: HRB232138; Geschaeftsfuehrer: Friedrich Dominicus |
Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
There is an important point that Lawson makes and that is that you cannot directly access native iPhone features in scratch, and as such, it would not make for a suitable alternative to Apple's IDE for people wanting to build native iPhone apps. Perhaps it is on those grounds that Apple could be convinced to reverse its decision about Scratch (and perhaps it might lead them to fine tune the language in their agreement).
- Stephen
|
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
In reply to this post by FDominicus
On 4/23/10 9:21 AM, "Friedrich Dominicus" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking >> iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep >> "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... yeah >> I >> think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem. It's ironic Apple once do his famous 1984 add... Who is Big Brother now ? Edgar |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
Who needs freedom, anyway? ~.~
|
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
This thread is pretty much only bike-shedding by now. Can we get back to something productive, please? Like, uh, documentation maybe? Coding? :)
- Bert - |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen Pair
[hidden email] wrote:
> > I agree with this...they certainly could have pushed the state of the art further in this regard. They probably chose a less ambitious approach to make sure they could ship something rather than bite off more than they could chew. In any case I expect better approaches will materialize as competitors catch up with Apple (and maybe Apple themselves will improve as people make their dissatisfaction known and those competitors come up with better solutions). > > Jobs' goal is to "change the world"... that means that everyone has to learn to use the Cocoa libs directly while programming them using a Mac. It really IS quite simple, once you understand his mindset: when Toy Story first came out and he was hailed as the great new Hollywood billionaire, he interviewed with a major news organization and all he wanted to talk about was NeXT, which was barely even a software product by that time. Lawson |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
In reply to this post by CdAB63
On Friday 23 April 2010 07:45:42 am Casimiro de Almeida Barreto wrote:
> Yes. But if you look at product licensing it's not allowed to install > android in an iPhone. That leads to the question: your iPhone is yours > or is it Apple's & you have just a "license to use" the device... So, I > prefer to purchase a native Android phone. There is a difference between a 'sale' (purchase ownership) and a 'license' (purchase right to use). If you paid bought an iPhone (and not leased it), it would constitute a 'sale' regardless of the small print on the tin. A seller cannot take away ownership rights by calling the transaction a 'license'. This may void warranty, though. IANAL, so take this as a layman's opinion. Subbu |
Re: [Esug-list] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve Jobs about Scratch.
|
|
In reply to this post by johnmci
Was there any conclusion to these talks? |
|
|
Radoslav asked yesterday about progress on the issue of Scratch on the iPad, so it's timely to give everyone an update.
I did ask Apple today for an update on the situation and was told: "We're still pondering the issue" So I remain positive and wait. On 2010-05-16, at 3:34 AM, radoslav hodnicak wrote: > > Was there any conclusion to these talks? > -- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]> Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com =========================================================================== |
smime.p7s (3K)
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |