Quote :

"^^But it is. Its an Adobe product and up until now with 10.1 was an issue cross-platform."

Adobe can only play with the hand they're dealt. If you're Apple you can't bitch about how bad Flash is on a Mac and then when Adobe tries to fix the problem pretty much just deny them the chance.

I mean, how do you feel as a user knowing that when Flash 10.1 comes out you could have a better Flash experience on your desktop, but it's Apple that refuses to let you have it?

4/9/2010 4:06:42 PM

Quote :

"Adobe can only play with the hand they're dealt. If you're Apple you can't bitch about how bad Flash is on a Mac and then when Adobe tries to fix the problem pretty much just deny them the chance. I mean, how do you feel as a user knowing that when Flash 10.1 comes out you could have a better Flash experience on your desktop, but it's Apple that refuses to let you have it?"

I don't use flash. I no longer develop for flash. And until 10.1 comes out you and I are in the same boat. Adobe just now figured out how to improve their product on one platform but have yet to figure it out on another. Thats an adobe problem.


I feel great, thanks.

4/9/2010 4:09:51 PM

But their product was, and has been fine on Windows.

But lets change the topic back to more revelant iPhone issues:

1) Is it true the 3G doesn't support homescreen wallpapers in OS4?
2) When will Mobile Safari on the iPhone actually support HTML5 video? Does it on the iPad?

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 4:15:23 PM

Quote :

"But their product was, and has been fine on Windows."

but it wasn't...lol Unless your definition of fine is 'its not great but i can live with it'

Last thing no flash...as I said before I'm only commenting on Flash as a video player. It does have its uses for other things though.

As a video player I am also seeing that Silverlight is a much more enjoyable experience than Flash. Especially with MS's instant on 1080p demo.

Quote :

"2) When will Mobile Safari on the iPhone actually support HTML5 video? Does it on the iPad?"

yes it does on the iPad. There are several OS 4.0 features that are already in 3.2 on iPad.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 4:18:43 PM

Here we go. If I put the first video on this ( http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1425 ) page into a <video> tag I can get it "playing" on my iPhone. Of course, it pops me out of the browser, into Quicktime, but I guess it "works".

If I put a Quicktime video into a <video> tag though, it doesn't work at all, despite working in Safari on an Apple.

Mystery solved.

4/9/2010 4:23:20 PM

on the iPad it plays it in the browser just as it would in Safari on Mac.

4/9/2010 4:24:20 PM

Quote :

"Last thing no flash...as I said before I'm only commenting on Flash as a video player. It does have its uses for other things though."

Yeah, like flash GAMES. You know, those things Apple can make millions of dollars on selling on the app store. Why the hell would they want to give their users access to the thousands of free flash games on the internet.

4/9/2010 8:03:29 PM

Well the developers would be taking a big hit on that as well...there goes their 70% from selling apps on the app store.

that aside, it doesn't address the performance issues with Flash.

4/9/2010 8:13:03 PM

I'm pretty sure the good developers at least would find other ways to make money. Let's not act like Apple invented the idea of anyone being able to produce content and make money off it by distributing it over the internet. The only thing Apple is providing to developers is a captive audience.

4/9/2010 8:21:31 PM

^seems to me like they did. what other platform was there pre-App Store that allowed developers to develop and distribute apps at little cost to them so effectively? Especially amateur developers.

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure the good developers at least would find other ways to make money."

If it ain't broke.....

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 8:26 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 8:24:47 PM

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/apple-takes-aim-at-adobe-or-android.ars

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 8:35 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 8:31:00 PM

^Why'd you remove the link? It was an interesting read and wasn't posted before although the subject matter was.

4/9/2010 8:34:30 PM

This part is great.

Quote :

"The absurdity of this is even more apparent if one thinks back to the initial announcemnt of the iPhone. The iPhone was never going to have an SDK. The mantra was "use web applications". Indeed, that was one of the driving forces behind Apple's creation of a first-rate mobile browser. Since the browser was going to be the application platform on iPhone, it had to be good. And indeed it was. The company was reluctant to produce an SDK; this was not simply a case of managing expectations, and keeping quiet about the SDK until it was good and ready. It was a sincere desire to use the web as the development platform. The eventual decision to release an SDK caught many within the company by surprise. Web apps are still an option, of course, for developers willing to live with their inherent restrictions. For those who can stick with C and C++ for the majority of their development, some level of compatibility between iPhone and other platforms is still possible. But both options still fail to give the considerable benefits that the third-party development platforms provide. Apple's current—and in our opinion, objectionable—position is now close to the complete opposite of its initial stance. From promoting openness and standards, the company is now pushing for an ever more locked-down and restricted platform. It's bad for competition, it's bad for developers, and it's bad for consumers. I hope that there will be enough of a backlash that the company is forced to reconsider, but with the draw of all those millions of iPhone (and now, iPad) customers, I fear that Apple's developers will, perhaps with some reluctance, just accept the restriction and do whatever Cupertino demands."

4/9/2010 8:44:22 PM

Quote :

"The primary reason for the change, say sources familiar with Apple's plans, is to support sophisticated new multitasking APIs in iPhone 4.0. The system will now be evaluating apps as they run in order to implement smart multitasking. It can't do this if apps are running within a runtime or are cross compiled with a foreign structure that doesn't behave identically to a native C/C++/Obj-C app. "[The operating system] can't swap out resources, it can't pause some threads while allowing others to run, it can't selectively notify, etc. Apple needs full access to a properly-compiled app to do the pull off the tricks they are with this new OS," wrote one reader under the name Ktappe. "

4/9/2010 9:49:54 PM

I'm happy I bought an iPhone a year ago. I still maintain it's the best smartphone expierence currently available. I'm happy 4.0 will be released soon with multitasking, multiple exchange accounts and other features I haven't had access to without jailbreaking. But I'm downright THRILLED that my contract is up in a year and I can switch to an android phone almost on principal alone. This locked down app store only nonsense is ridiculous and quite frankly scares the hell out of me. How long until you can only install applications on your mac book that have been approved and are purchased through the app store? Then what's next? Sorry, the firefox application has not been approved because it replicates features already included with your computer. C'mon backlash!

/rant

4/9/2010 10:13:14 PM

^^^ unfortunately for the author, the easiest place to get the best apps is on iphone. The games alone blow any other smartphone platform out of the water (and we are talking games for all audiences -- nerds, kids, women, adults). His assertion that it is bad for consumers is false, and his assertion that it is bad for developers -- given that that it is the place were one can make the most profit -- is dubious.

4/9/2010 10:25:24 PM

Quote :

"I can switch to an android phone almost on principal alone."

lol.

On principal the only person you are hurting is yourself. Lets just say, hypothetically, that Android is a terrible user experience. You are willing to spend MORE money then you already have spent on purchasing an iPhone to purchase an inferior (again hypothetically) product and experience over some principal that really doesn't affect you one way or another because 1) you are not a developer and 2) you already have downloaded (Free + Paid apps) and could potentially download more great apps but instead want to give all that up.

Now if you said you'd abandon the iPhone because the platform and apps went downhill then I'd say you were making a smart move.

I mean hell if you're a serious gamer chances are you are locked into using windows. As a consumer whats the difference? You go where the better apps and experience takes you.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 11:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 11:23:46 PM

Quote :

"His assertion that it is bad for consumers is false, and his assertion that it is bad for developers -- given that that it is the place were one can make the most profit -- is dubious."

Explain how limiting the tools with which content developers can create content is not bad for consumers? Further, explain how it is dubious for developers themselves?

This kind of move will severly limit smaller development houses as well as independent developers. Assuming it goes through as it stands. It is baffling how anyone outside of Apple themselves can defend this type of thing.

4/9/2010 11:52:08 PM

Quote :

"Explain how limiting the tools with which content developers can create content is not bad for consumers? Further, explain how it is dubious for developers themselves? "

This is overstating the issue, as we currently know it.

The developers of the Unity "engine" for example feel their environment is safe.

Quote :

"This kind of move will severly limit smaller development houses as well as independent developers. "

I doubt this. The Xcode tools are decent. There are a good handful of engines/apis out there in Obj-C already. And there are 200,000 apps in the store already with the vast majority of those built using Apple's tools.

The only hurt from this is purely the ideological response that the nerd-net has been having.

The best thing for Apple to do is sanction 3rd party tools that can conform to the spec for OS 4.0 I think. But it's naive to pretend this will materially hurt very many people.

4/10/2010 12:00:18 AM

Quote :

"This kind of move will severly limit smaller development houses as well as independent developers."

What? NOTHING has changed and the app store is flooded with small development and independent developers apps.

Quote :

" Explain how limiting the tools with which content developers can create content is not bad for consumers?"

What limits? The only limits is the device its self. You have everything you need as a developer. Nothing has changed since the SDK first came about except its improvements. Developers are still flocking to the platform.

Hell...take a look at Tweetie. One guy created it with a full time job, quit his full time job because of the money he made from its success and now has been acquired by Twitter and Tweetie has become Twitters official iPhone/iPad app. Do you think he would have seen this success without the App store? If it was so difficult to develop/distribute your app with? Probably not...

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 12:00:56 AM

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/11/darpa-looking-to-develop-iphone-and-android-apps-app-store/

This sounds really cool. The comments are amusing. Makes you wonder if these people actually read the articles they comment on.

4/10/2010 12:29:40 AM

It's not like it's the first time that Jobs has outright lied to the public, so I suppose it should come as no surprise, but it turns out that that whole "the iPhone 3G hardware isn't capable of supporting multitasking" thing is complete bullshit.

http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=8777

Quote :

"Multi-tasking can be easily enabled on the iPhone 3G by setting a flag in the capabilities plist, according to a tweet by cdevwill. wow looks like multitasking can be enabled on the 3G if you just set multitasking=TRUE on the capabilities plist in SB (N82AP.plist)"

4/10/2010 1:57:55 AM

Quote :

""the iPhone 3G hardware isn't capable of supporting multitasking""

Do you guys take everything so literal? Its quite obvious that the problem isn't that it's physically impossible to enable multitasking but rather a performance issue...can the OS remain responsive on a 1st/2nd gen with heavy multi-tasking? I guess we'll wait for those that enable it on the 3g to start bitching about the phone being slow to find out for sure.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 2:07 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 2:06:10 AM

my 3G gets slow as balls without multi-tasking. i hate being limited on any device i use, but i don't think i'm going to miss it much on this go-around.

"the iPhone 3G hardware isn't capable of supporting multitasking" == "the iPhone 3G hardware isn't capable of supporting multitasking well"

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 2:08 AM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 2:07:08 AM

deep breath, guys. it'll be okay. you're gonna upgrade at some point, and then you'll get newer features. no need to get worked up over what Jobso said here.

4/10/2010 2:12:23 AM

Quote :

"Do you guys take everything so literal? "

It's not a matter of anyone "taking" something literally or not. He outright lied. He said the hardware doesn't support it when it does. That's a lie, end of story. I would have respected him more if he told the obvious truth which is that the hardware might not be able to handle it as well.

Quote :

"Its quite obvious that the problem isn't that it's physically impossible to enable multitasking but rather a performance issue...can the OS remain responsive on a 1st/2nd gen with heavy multi-tasking?"

See, even someone as stupid as you figured out the obvious truth. Yet he still bothers to lie about it and say that the hardware isn't capable. Just like 1st gen's hardware isn't capable of MMS, right? or how nobody that's interested in an ipod touch wants it to contain a camera. yeah, but people that buy nanos are.

Quote :

"I guess we'll wait for those that enable it on the 3g to start bitching about the phone being slow to find out for sure."

Why wait for anything? I was running multiple concurrent apps on my 1st gen 2 years ago with backgrounder. And that's really running multiple apps at the same time, none of this background services stuff (which I legitimately do believe will be better, btw) Obviously you can bog down even a 3GS if you run too many things at once, but I don't believe for one second that running pandora in the background is going to bring even a lowly first gen to it's knees.

For me, it's an issue of respect for your customers. And lying shows no respect. If he would have said something about it being a lesser experience on 3G but we're going to allow it, that would have been great. Even if he said that because of the potential of a lesser experience that's why they're not gonna allow it, that would have been ok. Hell, I wouldn't have minded if he would have just came out and said the real truth which is "We want you to buy a new phone so we're not going to allow you to have all the cool new features."

4/10/2010 5:18:01 AM

Good lord, you jump to conclusions a lot. The basic capability of the 3G to multitask is NOT the same thing as it being a desirable experience. You know that part of why the iPhone sells well is because it also works well. Do you honestly think they're going to consider giving their customers a potentially inferior experience, even if it means a wider audience for the update? Your reaction to their motivation is just outright cynical.

4/10/2010 8:47:03 AM

^^ I can also install and run Vista on machines that don't meet the minimum system requirements. Does that mean that Microsoft lied to me about those minimum requirements?

4/10/2010 9:01:19 AM

^^he's an idiot. I wouldn't waste my time. I don't know why I even bothered responding when i know this shit is beyond him.

4/10/2010 9:05:56 AM

Facts and logic do not concern fanboys like El Nachó. The stone cold fact that people can't practically multitask on jailbroken 3g phones is irrelevant. Jobs lied because a statement he didn't even make wasn't technically true, although it was effectively true (classic aspie nerdism: getting butthurt over distinctions without differences)

Apparently, it is now a lie for any software vendor to say that their software has a minimum hardware requirement that is not same as complete technical failure (and far beyond usability).

There are plenty of reasons not to like the iphone, but this is one of the dumbest. The fact that this idiot is pushing this point shows how much of a desperate fanboy he is.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 9:13:03 AM

That smacks more of simple whining than fanboyism.

4/10/2010 9:28:10 AM

Any word on BT AVRCP support in 4.0?

4/10/2010 9:46:05 AM

^^forgot to explain: I consider fanboyism and anti-fanboyism equivalent.

4/10/2010 9:57:43 AM

My favorite comment from the Gizmodo article on this:

http://gizmodo.com/5513828/the-reason-why-apple-is-not-enabling-multitasking-in-old-iphones-and-ipods

Quote :

"Step 1: Apple releases "revolutionary" device with a smooth interface that will "change everything". It is, however, missing several important features that people take for granted because you'd be crazy to not include it. Step 2: Apple fanboys express some concern, but otherwise talk about how they can't wait to buy it before they've really even seen it working. Step 3: People step in to try and explain why it's okay to leave features out, even if basic support is included. Reasons range from limitations to it not really being necessary. Many will applause Apple for leaving out a feature that might not be good enough, or that people think is necessary but really isn't. Step 4: Apple releases new product. People buy it in droves. Some express disappointment, vast majority talk about how awesome their new toy is. They insist that it will definitely "change everything" despite the lack of basic functions. Step 5: Apple announces inclusion of missing functions. Sometimes these new features will notably be absent from certain models, for no other reason than to have some of their devices be "better" than others. Step 6: Apple is applauded for including brilliant features like "copy and paste" or "multitasking". Some express awe that Apple worked out the problems, others say it's Apple being ingenious. Step 7: New features launch, either as a glorified patch/service pack. Many will buy new hardware to run the updates. Apple begins the cycle anew."

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 11:39:52 AM

Quote :

"Facts and logic do not concern fanboys like El Nachó. The stone cold fact that people can't practically multitask on jailbroken 3g phones is irrelevant."

Huh?

I’ve seen jailbroken 3Gs multitasking, and they do it beautifully, using the exact same UI that the Palm Pre uses (so the draw window is being fully buffered somewhere). The 3G can definitely multitask with no noticeable performance degradation.

It obviously doesn’t have the same resources as a 3GS would, and we don’t know exactly what multitasking implementation Apple might be using for their thing, but it’s foolish to go around screaming “OMG JOBS LIED!!!” when what jobs said is a half-truth, at worst, and might be the full truth depending on how Apple is doing their tricks.

4/10/2010 12:03:27 PM

Quote :

"This is overstating the issue, as we currently know it. The developers of the Unity "engine" for example feel their environment is safe."

I am well aware of what the developers of the Unity engine feel. I am a customer of theirs. Why did you put engine in quotes? Their exact words were that their best guess at this point is that they are ok. They can't guarantee and they don't actually know.

Its not overstating the issue. It is addressing a possible interpretation of the new SDK restrictions. As I have said multiple times in the thread we of course are still up in the air about a lot of things. I was responding directly to skokkian's post.

Quote :

"The only hurt from this is purely the ideological response that the nerd-net has been having. The best thing for Apple to do is sanction 3rd party tools that can conform to the spec for OS 4.0 I think. But it's naive to pretend this will materially hurt very many people."

The only naive thing going on is your understanding of this industry. If we interpret this situation to mean that all app development must be done 100% in Apples tool kits (decent is an overstatement. serviceable is more apt, and barely) then you cut out and/or significantly affect a very large number of developers.

Unity3D alone has roughly 120,000 developers using their tools, and their iPhone/iPad solution is their top seller. Thats not counting other solutions like Torque, UE, etc. In addition to all of that, there are developers that provide their own middleware for those engines.

Is it the majority? Probably not. Is it significant? Yes. Do most independent/hobbyist/small shops use these 'middleware' solutions to enable them to even be in the marketplace? Yes

Quote :

"What? NOTHING has changed and the app store is flooded with small development and independent developers apps."

Dur? Thats why I said a change like that WOULD affect, not IS. Of course it hasn't affected the app store, its a beta license agreement that just came out a couple days ago.

Quote :

"What limits? The only limits is the device its self. You have everything you need as a developer. Nothing has changed since the SDK first came about except its improvements. Developers are still flocking to the platform."

Have you even been paying attention to the point of conversation here? We are talking about Apple limiting developers in the tools they can use. The only thing it has to do with the SDK is the limitation in the user agreement developers will have to agree to.

Quote :

"Hell...take a look at Tweetie. One guy created it with a full time job, quit his full time job because of the money he made from its success and now has been acquired by Twitter and Tweetie has become Twitters official iPhone/iPad app. Do you think he would have seen this success without the App store? If it was so difficult to develop/distribute your app with? Probably not..."

Are you trying to argue with me that the App store is a success and that it is appealing to developers? No shit? Its not difficult to develop/distribute apps; where has that been claimed?

Also, there are far more complex applications on the app store than an API interface for Twitter. Some that many developers need and use middleware software solutions for.


In reality, I think things will be ok for the majority of middleware tools. It will end up being a pissing match between Adobe and Apple.


[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 12:18 PM. Reason : *]

4/10/2010 12:10:52 PM

Quote :

"Have you even been paying attention to the point of conversation here? We are talking about Apple limiting developers in the tools they can use. The only thing it has to do with the SDK is the limitation in the user agreement developers will have to agree to. "

Yeas I have been paying attention. My point is the only limitation which is hardly a limitation but rather an upfront cost is having to develop on a Mac. The sdk is free to download. If you've used Xcode you'll know that it's really not a bad tool to develop iPhone os or Mac apps on.

Quote :

" Some that many developers need and use middleware software solutions for"

Example?

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 1:33:13 PM

The tactic Lokken is using is called FUD.

So, some guy who doesn't even have a 3g is telling me that it multitasks well when I actually have one and know that it doesnt? 3g owners should be the most pissed off by the announcement, but those of us who have actually jailbroken our phones know why they made the decision. Running a program to clean out memory or having shit randomly crash is untenable.

4/10/2010 1:41:20 PM

Quote :

"The only naive thing going on is your understanding of this industry. If we interpret this situation to mean that all app development must be done 100% in Apples tool kits (decent is an overstatement. serviceable is more apt, and barely) then you cut out and/or significantly affect a very large number of developers."

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...

Apple hasn't commented on this issue yet. One blogger took a statement and super-imposed his interpretation, and the Internet has run with it. As you yourself have pointed out with your "If" there, no one knows what Apple is going to do yet.

And I don't think Apple is going to tell developers using good tools "oh well" and shrug their shoulders. So considering that the wording is ambiguous, Apple hasn't commented on the issue, and the tools are entrenched with a sizable development community, the logical conclusion isn't "OMG APPLE IS DUMB!!!," it's "what this blogger is saying doesn't make any sense for Apple to do, so let's wait and see what Apple says before we rage."

4/10/2010 1:47:07 PM

Quote :

"Yeas I have been paying attention. My point is the only limitation which is hardly a limitation but rather an upfront cost is having to develop on a Mac. The sdk is free to download. If you've used Xcode you'll know that it's really not a bad tool to develop iPhone os or Mac apps on."

This shows you've either not been reading or don't grasp what the discussion is about. I have used Xcode. Its not a bad tool. Its also not a good tool. Its an option. It is never good for the consumer or developer when there is only ONE option.

Quote :

"Example?"

Do your own homework. I'm not going to break down the various titles and developers that use the plethora of different middleware solutions.

Quote :

"The tactic Lokken is using is called FUD."

So I take this to mean you cant explain your comment as I asked you to?

Quote :

"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts... Apple hasn't commented on this issue yet. One blogger took a statement and super-imposed his interpretation, and the Internet has run with it. As you yourself have pointed out with your "If" there, no one knows what Apple is going to do yet. And I don't think Apple is going to tell developers using good tools "oh well" and shrug their shoulders. So considering that the wording is ambiguous, Apple hasn't commented on the issue, and the tools are entrenched with a sizable development community, the logical conclusion isn't "OMG APPLE IS DUMB!!!," it's "what this blogger is saying doesn't make any sense for Apple to do, so let's wait and see what Apple says before we rage.""

I agree with you 100%

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 1:52 PM. Reason : *]

4/10/2010 1:50:32 PM

Quote :

"Example?"

From the Unity3D side of things:

http://blogs.unity3d.com/2009/12/11/itunes-rewind-2009-recognizes-unity-games/

Their toolkit was used in creating 2 of Apple's Best Games of 2009 and one of the Top Selling Games of 2009.

Meanwhile Bioware used Torque to make a Mass Effect game for the iPhone.

4/10/2010 2:03:53 PM

I'm sorry i wasn't clear i meant examples that couldn't have been created in Xcode?

4/10/2010 2:10:20 PM

Obviously they all could be created in XCode when given an infinite amount of time.

This would be like if someone told you to make an animation in JavaScript from all dynamically created elements on the fly that works in every browser from IE6+. Sure, you could do it in base level JavaScript, but wouldn't it make more sense, be faster to develop, and probably wind up being a better end product to add to and then support if you used a framework?

4/10/2010 2:54:19 PM

Quote :

"Yeas I have been paying attention. My point is the only limitation which is hardly a limitation but rather an upfront cost is having to develop on a Mac. The sdk is free to download. If you've used Xcode you'll know that it's really not a bad tool to develop iPhone os or Mac apps on. "

http://blog.joa-ebert.com/2010/04/09/what-apple-just-did/

Quote :

" Musician: Hey Apple, I just had to accept a new license agreement for your iTunes platform. Apple: So what? You have been really reading through it? Musician: It says that I have to use GarageBand if I want to see any music I produce on iTunes. Apple: Correct. Musician: Well but I do not like GarageBand. I would like to use Ableton Live. Apple: Sorry but you are not allowed to use that. Musician: But it is suited very well for electronic music. Apple: Use GarageBand then. It is a magical and amazing product! Musician: Okay fair enough, but what if I would like to play the piano? An instrument I have practiced since more than eight years. I think I am creating better music on a piano than with GarageBand. Apple: Then you invested your time in the wrong instrument. Musician: Okay. What about the Audiotool? Can I use it? Apple: That application does not even run on our devices. Those developers are lazy. Musician: Errr, okay. So if I use GarageBand I can do what I want? Apple: No. If you use the F-word in a song for example it won’t be distributed via iTunes. Musician: You are kidding. Why? Apple: Because we think that it is not appropriate. Musician: That must be a joke. Apple: Not at all. Your child could listen to that song — think about it. Musician: Well, I think I know best what’s good for my child. Besides, would some parental control system not help here? Apple: Next question please. Musician: Okay, assume I use GarageBand and that my content is “appropriate”. Can I be sure it will make it to the iTunes store? Apple: First we will check it. Musician: How long will that take? Apple: Up to two months. Musician: Are you serious? Apple: Yes. There is plenty of music being created and we want to filter only whats best for our users. Musician: And you think you can decide that? Apple: Sure. Musician: Okay, let me sum this up quickly: I have to use GarageBand to create any music for iTunes. It has to be “appropriate” and then you let me wait for quite some time to tell me whether you like it or not? Apple: Now you make it sound like as if we were evil. Google is evil. We are the good guys! And look, the new iPad. Isn’t it beautiful? Musician: Oh, yeah. I really want that overpriced product. Where can I buy it? Apple: In our certified Apple retail stores. Musician: And you will not pull me over this time like you did with the iPhone when you dropped the price dramatically two weeks after its release? Apple: No. Not exactly. We will release an iPad with a webcam soon. And we will charge $200 extra for that. [...] Sounds strange doesn’t it? Thank god this was just a fictional interview and will never become reality."

4/10/2010 3:33:12 PM

Quote :

"Obviously they all could be created in XCode when given an infinite amount of time. This would be like if someone told you to make an animation in JavaScript from all dynamically created elements on the fly that works in every browser from IE6+. Sure, you could do it in base level JavaScript, but wouldn't it make more sense, be faster to develop, and probably wind up being a better end product to add to and then support if you used a framework? "

??? ???

XCode is your eclipse (IDE)

The SDK is your Codeigniter, jQuery, Spring, etc (Framework)

??? ???

Your analogy is irrelevant. So not at all like that.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 4:35:25 PM

Obviously anything that is available on the app store right now could be done, in some way, in X-code. Thats nowhere near the issue.

The issue is that many developers and independents rely on existing 3rd party solutions to even be able to operate.

What if tomorrow Microsoft altered their development agreement in a way that made using licensed engines like Unreal and Steam to develop 360 products prohibited? How many development houses would be up shit creek? They have all that $ invested in licensing those products, technical expertise in those products, etc. Its useless. Now instead of creating gaming content they have to spend their resources and man power coming up with a way to fill that gap. If they can.

Sure the tools Microsoft provided can do it, but many developers don't have the time, resources, or expertise to be able to.

4/10/2010 4:53:25 PM

Quote :

"Facts and logic do not concern fanboys like El Nachó. There are plenty of reasons not to like the iphone, but this is one of the dumbest. The fact that this idiot is pushing this point shows how much of a desperate fanboy he is. ^^forgot to explain: I consider fanboyism and anti-fanboyism equivalent."

skokiaan, you are truly a king among dumbasses. Despite the fact that you can't seem to figure out if you want to call me a fanboy, or an anti-fanboy you're still wrong on both accounts. I don't hate the iPhone, as you suggested, and you're wrong about pretty much everything else you said too. I love my iPhone, but it's not perfect. I respect Jobs, but I don't enjoy how he handled this situation. I'm pretty much so as middle of the road as you can get. You're mighty quick to take one thing I said and dismiss it as the rants of an iPhone hater. Then again, I was pretty quick to take the 10-12 idiotic things you said and dismiss you as an idiot, so oh well.

Quote :

"Good lord, you jump to conclusions a lot. The basic capability of the 3G to multitask is NOT the same thing as it being a desirable experience. You know that part of why the iPhone sells well is because it also works well. Do you honestly think they're going to consider giving their customers a potentially inferior experience, even if it means a wider audience for the update? Your reaction to their motivation is just outright cynical."

I don't think you bothered to read everything I wrote. Because you basically just said the same thing I did. But yet somehow I'm cynical because I suggested they'd like to sell more phones? ok.

Quote :

"I can also install and run Vista on machines that don't meet the minimum system requirements. Does that mean that Microsoft lied to me about those minimum requirements?"

But with Vista you have the option of installing it on an old computer. And when it runs like ass, you only have yourself to blame. With the iPhone, you don't have that option. All I ever was trying to say is that it would have been nice to give 3G users that option with the understanding that it could result in a degraded experience. Or to tell the obvious truth that they don't want the possibility of a degraded experience at all. I guess it might be a silly thing to nitpick over, but some of y'all are acting like I'm over here crying my eyes out and starting online petitions to publicly lynch Steve Jobs. I promise you guys I'm really not that worked up over it, you shouldn't be either. I was just trying to spark a little discussion, but all of the sudden everyone wants to start calling people fanboys and antifanboys and idiots and morons.

4/10/2010 9:06:30 PM

Quote :

"I don't think you bothered to read everything I wrote. Because you basically just said the same thing I did. But yet somehow I'm cynical because I suggested they'd like to sell more phones? ok."

Um... Yes, I do think they want to sell more phones. That's why they're saying that the 3GS is what's going to have supported multitasking, and not the 3G. My point is that you're overreacting.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 9:36 PM. Reason : Fucking iPad spell correction, lol]

4/10/2010 9:35:59 PM

I mean, I really don't see why you guys think I'm overreacting. Do you just picture me frothing at the mouth, yelling at the top of my lungs "FUCK STEVE JOBS!!!!"?

I do see some people overreacting in here, but I honestly don't think I'm one of them. skokiaan on the other hand...

4/10/2010 9:57:10 PM

You basically said that you thought Jobso is disrespectful to you as his customer. I say he's already got your moneys, so... well played, Steve.

4/10/2010 10:01:57 PM