I'd concur -- I don't get the Posse letting Apple off the hook here.
Apple is not evil for being closed-source -- and they do have more
compelling UX / products than competitors.
However, Apple is, if not evil, a significant force against the greater
good -- and clearly could care less.
The whole "walled garden" market approach of video game consoles is a
problem for both developers and consumers. Having to pay to get in is
bad. Having to sign an NDA once you've seen the SDK/APIs is worse.
Having to develop an application first and then beg for permission to
release it on the device only to have Apple reject it for any reason at
all takes the cake, though.
For video game consoles, one can just ignore that market space as a
developer and be happy with whatever one /can /buy as a consumer. For a
device that may replace the home computer in a good number of
households, however, Apple's highly walled garden is a huge issue.
Developers are totally subservient to Apple and the consumer only gets
to use their device as Apple sees fit. That's not a world I want to see
as either a developer or a consumer.
--
Jess Holle
On 2/15/2010 2:39 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
+1. I have to say I do find it mildly amusing to be listening to a
Java podcast, where the choice/openness moniker is often invoked, and
then listen to this. Well respected developers by you guys, i.e. Josh
Marinacci, have called Apple out on this [http://bit.ly/EvIl] yet you
see no evil. I suppose one must attribute this to the power of their
brand as well as their influential disciple (David Pogue etc.).
Usability and polish aside, what exactly makes Apple different and
less evil than say Microsoft - other than the typical appliance
argument?
/Casper
On Feb 15, 8:50 am, Reinier Zwitserloot<reini...@gmail.com> wrote:
TLDR: Rewrote (and dare I say improved) on this little rant for my
blog:http://zwitserloot.com/2010/02/15/apple-is-evi-well-no-but-perhaps-sh...
- for those interested.
On Feb 15, 5:33 am, Reinier Zwitserloot<reini...@gmail.com> wrote:
There's a fairly long spiel on podcast 297 about why the iPad isn't
"evil". I got the impression none of the posse understand what's at
stake here. I'll be brief - if you think this stuff is interesting and/
or important, search the blogsphere, you'll have _plenty_ to read.
(spoiler: You can't sign the NDA you need to agree to do become an SDK
developer until 18. Apple is morally in the wrong for not considering
this).
Those who have some reservations about the iPad usually foresee a
great future for the device. I know the standard sales pitch is for it
to be a 'third device', but I think that's just shortsighted. What
would your average family need to do that the iPad cannot do (let's
make a few provisos, such as a way to sync phones and cameras to an
ipad)? Play really complex games? Sure, but, you'll probably buy a
games console and not a PC to fill that niche. Programming? This is
about people who are just tinkering about before they actually realize
they'd even want to try programming. What else is there? Serious work,
spending many hours behind the screen? Working stiffs (and
programmers :P) will do that, but why would a family need to consider
that? Also, there's the keyboard dock. Even Mac OS X is so complicated
my parents just don't understand it. They've got 8 screens worth of
apps on their iPhones though, and I never showed them anything for it,
whereas I try to explain their macbook to them every time I'm over.
But therein lies a problem. Game consoles are already closed NDA-
protected fiefdoms, and the iPad is no different.
Joe specifically said: Just get the SDK - but that costs money, isn't
all that great for tinkering (you don't put $99 up front for a whim,
and the tools aren't made to just screw about for a bit. It's not like
apple also ships a logo-like environment so kids can learn to program
too, and there's no way to make something like this either, as you'd
either break the NDA or you'll run afoul of the app store policies),
and you HAVE TO BE 18 YEARS OLD! I was less than half that age when I
wrote my first (ridiculously simple and juvenile) program.
Nevertheless, it was a program.
Apple is a ground-breaking company that is in the business of
redefining how the world interacts with automated systems. If you want
to be in that kind of visionary position, you have to think of this
stuff, and I'm very disappointed that they either haven't considered
this, or did, and decided not to care about it. They don't have to
open up the platform much to solve this issue. By relaxing the rules
on apps that themselves also run apps just a little, you could make
awesome programming environments almost anybody can tinker around
with, it would turn the iPad from a force of evil into a force of
good, as far as increasing the pool of technical creative people is
concerned.
*THAT* is why apple is morally on shaky ground. Which, in the modern
age, needs to be written as "apple is EEEEVIL!" because headlines
always ridiculously overstate everything in a silly grab for
attention.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java
Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
