Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Peter Alcibiades]

Well and coherently argued, as usual.  

But, question:  if the restrictions stick or fail to stick, what do you think
the implications are for Rev and resources for multiple platforms?

If they do get into the App Store, are there enough resources to do that,
Windows, OSX, Linux and Android as well?

Yes, I have a one track mind on this, but its my only programming language right
now.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Neal Campbell]

I have hope though that public pressure and the SEC could change matters.
Maybe the game market isn't precedence but I am sure Apple will try to make
it that way!

Neal Campbell
Abroham Neal Software
www.abrohamnealsoftware.com
(540) 645 5394 NEW PHONE NUMBER

Amateur Radio: K3NC
Blog: http://www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/blog/
DXBase bug reports: email to ca...@dxbase.fogbugz.com
Abroham Neal forums: http:/www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/community/





On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Jeff Massung  wrote:

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Neal Campbell  wrote:
>
> >
> > What happens if they refuse to give you the "QA" approval?
> >
>
> Nothing other than you fix a couple bugs and resubmit for approval. To be
> clear, this is *not* like submitting your app to Apple for approval in the
> AppStore. Apple's approval is about them making sure they like what they
> see
> and they can (for all intense purposes) reject your app for any reason
> what-so-ever. Submitting to Nintendo (or Sony or MSFT) is 100% a QA
> approval. They aren't "playing" your game or checking it for inappropriate
> content (ESRB does that and rates your game). All the QA approval process
> is
> about is whether or not your game crashes and abides by certain guidelines.
> For example (taken from Nintendo Wii lot check):
>
> *Section 3.3: Prohibition of Sustained Continuous Non-Sequential Access
> [Required]*
>
> If there has been no user input for more than 5 minutes (or 10-15 minutes,
> based on the screen burn-in reduction feature setting), continuous
> non-sequential disc access should end within 1 hour. Once user input is
> received, resume normal operations. Non-sequential access is defined as
> seeking to access data spaced more than 200 MB apart on the disc.
>
> Non-sequential access resumed within five seconds for a long period of time
> can shorten the lifespan of the disc drive. To avoid unnecessary aging of
> the disc drive while the user is not operating the application, do not
> conduct this kind of non-sequential access for more than one continuous
> hour.
>
> For example, when a movie is playing for a long time, position the files
> that will be accessed nearby and, if non-sequential access will be carried
> out, limit the number of loops.
>
> For information on the wait time set for the screen burn-in reduction
> feature, see the Wii Video Interface Library (VI) manual and the Video
> Interface Library section of the Revolution Function Reference Manual. If
> you are going to reconfigure the wait time for the screen burn-in
> reduction feature, see section 6.22 Changing Screen Burn-In Reduction Wait
> Time [Recommended].
>
>
> They are all like this. They are geared towards protecting the hardware
> from
> malicious use (constantly writing to flash or pinging the head of the DVD),
> and the user's TV, making sure the user has certain interface expectations
> (ala HID), and that should something bad happen, your application handles
> it
> gracefully. There is absolutely nothing about the QA submission process for
> which you can be rejected permanently. You'll just be given a list of bugs
> to fix and you fix them.
>
>
>
> > What does the actual license agreement say (can you quote it)?
> >
>
> No, I cannot.
>
>
> Jeff M.
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Jeff Massung]

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Neal Campbell  wrote:

>
> What happens if they refuse to give you the "QA" approval?
>

Nothing other than you fix a couple bugs and resubmit for approval. To be
clear, this is *not* like submitting your app to Apple for approval in the
AppStore. Apple's approval is about them making sure they like what they see
and they can (for all intense purposes) reject your app for any reason
what-so-ever. Submitting to Nintendo (or Sony or MSFT) is 100% a QA
approval. They aren't "playing" your game or checking it for inappropriate
content (ESRB does that and rates your game). All the QA approval process is
about is whether or not your game crashes and abides by certain guidelines.
For example (taken from Nintendo Wii lot check):

*Section 3.3: Prohibition of Sustained Continuous Non-Sequential Access
[Required]*

If there has been no user input for more than 5 minutes (or 10-15 minutes,
based on the screen burn-in reduction feature setting), continuous
non-sequential disc access should end within 1 hour. Once user input is
received, resume normal operations. Non-sequential access is defined as
seeking to access data spaced more than 200 MB apart on the disc.

Non-sequential access resumed within five seconds for a long period of time
can shorten the lifespan of the disc drive. To avoid unnecessary aging of
the disc drive while the user is not operating the application, do not
conduct this kind of non-sequential access for more than one continuous
hour.

For example, when a movie is playing for a long time, position the files
that will be accessed nearby and, if non-sequential access will be carried
out, limit the number of loops.

For information on the wait time set for the screen burn-in reduction
feature, see the Wii Video Interface Library (VI) manual and the Video
Interface Library section of the Revolution Function Reference Manual. If
you are going to reconfigure the wait time for the screen burn-in
reduction feature, see section 6.22 Changing Screen Burn-In Reduction Wait
Time [Recommended].


They are all like this. They are geared towards protecting the hardware from
malicious use (constantly writing to flash or pinging the head of the DVD),
and the user's TV, making sure the user has certain interface expectations
(ala HID), and that should something bad happen, your application handles it
gracefully. There is absolutely nothing about the QA submission process for
which you can be rejected permanently. You'll just be given a list of bugs
to fix and you fix them.



> What does the actual license agreement say (can you quote it)?
>

No, I cannot.


Jeff M.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Randall Lee Reetz]

Well that is better than the usual response. We can't wag our fingers simply 
because someone has figured out how to be better or bigger criminals that we 
are.

Big criminals get big only because the larger society in which they practice 
their art reflects in public sentiment the criminal behaviour they exploit.  We 
vote every day and all day long.

 

-Original Message-
From: Richmond Mathewson 
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:22 AM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

  On 04/05/2010 20:09, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:
> What everyone here seems to forget is that flash finally took vector graphics 
> powered by very tightly packed and efficiently executed byte code to a web 
> that choked up by static bit maps.  It was long overdue.  Problem is that it 
> never belonged at the plugin level.  Now steve is trying to right this 
> architectural wrong, but from the same messed up closed system protectionist 
> motivation that drove macromedia to make the same mistake.  Infrastructure is 
> infrastructure.  It serves no one  to build a private interstate highway 
> system.  haven't we learned this yet?  I am all for antitrust laws but only 
> when those writing and enforcing them understand them at a deeper level than 
> simple market competition.  Obama is a smart guy.  He is appointing smart 
> prosecutors and judges and giving them the right mandates.  Something of 
> merit will come of this standoff and what motivates it.  But I do remember 
> the ridiculous apple antitrust suit against microsoft.  Who built the windows 
> mouse metaphor... xerox.  The truth has a way of bubbling up.
>
> What bothers me is how willing the public is to forgive (even become 
> apologists for) criminal or short sighted minds when those minds get rich 
> being "better at being wrong than I am".
>
> What color is the money you make?
>
>
Let's see:  2 lev notes are purple, 5 lev notes are red, 10 lev notes 
are yellow-brown, 20 lev notes are blue,
50 lev notes are also yellow-brown (but a different size from the 10s) 
and the 100 lev ones (of which I see
very few) are green.

More to the point; I don't know how those notes have come to me; how the 
parents of the children I teach
have earned them, and so on: what I do know is that I do my job as best 
I can and that money pays for
the bread and cheese.

I don't vet the people who pay me to find out how honest they are; for 
starters it would be plain
offensive, I'd lose all my pupils in double-quick time, and  don't quite 
see the point.

Money has no smell; what does smell is how it is obtained; mine smells 
reasonably rosey.

I hope the same can be said for you.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Neal Campbell]

Hi Jeff
What happens if they refuse to give you the "QA" approval? It now sounds
like they have, as opposed to execute, the power to stop you at 2 points in
the development cycle. The fact that they do not use it is separate from the
license agreement which appears to have dual points of approval, before and
after you develop.

What does the actual license agreement say (can you quote it)?


Neal Campbell
Abroham Neal Software
www.abrohamnealsoftware.com
(540) 645 5394 NEW PHONE NUMBER

Amateur Radio: K3NC
Blog: http://www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/blog/
DXBase bug reports: email to ca...@dxbase.fogbugz.com
Abroham Neal forums: http:/www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/community/





On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Jeff Massung  wrote:

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Neal Campbell  wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeff
> >
> > But what happens if MSFT or Nintendo reject your app. They hold the same
> > power of rejection that Apple does,
>
>
>
> Not true. The idea of "reject" isn't quite the same in the console context
> as it is for Apple and the App Store.
>
> To simplify this greatly, Nintendo or MSFT actually agrees to your app long
> before you ever get to the submission process. This is the process of
> acquiring a title ID for your application. Some publishers do it late in
> the
> process and others do it very early - even before they enter into
> production. Once you have a title ID, your game has been "accepted".
>
> It should be noted that the only times I've ever seen an app get rejected
> at
> this stage is if it goes way beyond what the console wants to be equated
> with in the public eye. For example, making a pornography game on the
> Nintendo likely wouldn't get a title ID.
>
> The submission process is very different from getting a title ID. This is
> nothing more than a glorified QA. It's when the console maker ensures that
> you handle crazy situations: player removes the DVD while the game is
> running, unplugs a controller, turns off the console during a save, leaves
> the game running for days on end to test for memory fragmentation/leaks,
> etc. Your game may be "rejected" at this stage, but only is as much as you
> fix the bugs and resubmit. Once the bugs are gone, you're "gold".
>
> Jeff M.
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Richmond Mathewson]

 On 04/05/2010 20:09, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

What everyone here seems to forget is that flash finally took vector graphics 
powered by very tightly packed and efficiently executed byte code to a web that 
choked up by static bit maps.  It was long overdue.  Problem is that it never 
belonged at the plugin level.  Now steve is trying to right this architectural 
wrong, but from the same messed up closed system protectionist motivation that 
drove macromedia to make the same mistake.  Infrastructure is infrastructure.  
It serves no one  to build a private interstate highway system.  haven't we 
learned this yet?  I am all for antitrust laws but only when those writing and 
enforcing them understand them at a deeper level than simple market 
competition.  Obama is a smart guy.  He is appointing smart prosecutors and 
judges and giving them the right mandates.  Something of merit will come of 
this standoff and what motivates it.  But I do remember the ridiculous apple 
antitrust suit against microsoft.  Who built the windows mouse metaphor... 
xerox.  The truth has a way of bubbling up.

What bothers me is how willing the public is to forgive (even become apologists for) 
criminal or short sighted minds when those minds get rich being "better at being 
wrong than I am".

What color is the money you make?


Let's see:  2 lev notes are purple, 5 lev notes are red, 10 lev notes 
are yellow-brown, 20 lev notes are blue,
50 lev notes are also yellow-brown (but a different size from the 10s) 
and the 100 lev ones (of which I see

very few) are green.

More to the point; I don't know how those notes have come to me; how the 
parents of the children I teach
have earned them, and so on: what I do know is that I do my job as best 
I can and that money pays for

the bread and cheese.

I don't vet the people who pay me to find out how honest they are; for 
starters it would be plain
offensive, I'd lose all my pupils in double-quick time, and  don't quite 
see the point.


Money has no smell; what does smell is how it is obtained; mine smells 
reasonably rosey.


I hope the same can be said for you.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Randall Lee Reetz]

What everyone here seems to forget is that flash finally took vector graphics 
powered by very tightly packed and efficiently executed byte code to a web that 
choked up by static bit maps.  It was long overdue.  Problem is that it never 
belonged at the plugin level.  Now steve is trying to right this architectural 
wrong, but from the same messed up closed system protectionist motivation that 
drove macromedia to make the same mistake.  Infrastructure is infrastructure.  
It serves no one  to build a private interstate highway system.  haven't we 
learned this yet?  I am all for antitrust laws but only when those writing and 
enforcing them understand them at a deeper level than simple market 
competition.  Obama is a smart guy.  He is appointing smart prosecutors and 
judges and giving them the right mandates.  Something of merit will come of 
this standoff and what motivates it.  But I do remember the ridiculous apple 
antitrust suit against microsoft.  Who built the windows mouse metaphor... 
xerox.  The truth has a way of bubbling up.  

What bothers me is how willing the public is to forgive (even become apologists 
for) criminal or short sighted minds when those minds get rich being "better at 
being wrong than I am".

What color is the money you make?



-Original Message-
From: Randall Lee Reetz 
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:44 AM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: RE: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

Wow, I completely disagree.  Apps aren't apples.  Apps are apples and oranges 
and anteaters.  The basis of your argument is that materials have more to do 
with desire than the finished product.  That would be akin to art historians 
only comparing art by the paint used.

That steve jobs is up to something bigger than his words imply is obvious.  
There was a time when he had a conscience (in the person of the Woz).  There 
was a time when Jobs espoused absolute openness (even all board meetings and 
payroll was open to all employees at next).

But I do think that all of this has to do with a fed up reaction to the north 
korea of software houses: adobe.

It is just too bad he didn't come right out and say it...



-Original Message-
From: Michael Kann 
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 8:06 AM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

Richard,

Did you catch the misleading use of logic in Steve's anti-Flash explanation? He 
outlined a scenario whereby third-party developers would become dependent on 
Flash, thereby causing problems when Apple innovated faster than Adobe.

But think it through. The only reason that third-party developers would become 
dependent on Flash would be if they could sell enough of their products to make 
it worthwhile. That dependency only means that people want to buy products made 
with Flash (or RunRev).

If it were true that the products where somehow inferior then the consumers 
would figure it out and the developers would soon switch over also.  So the 
quality protection explanation is completely bogus. (Which you already know I'm 
sure).

Mike

 

--- On Tue, 5/4/10, Richard Gaskin  wrote:

> From: Richard Gaskin 
> Subject: Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)
> To: "How to use Revolution" 
> Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 9:56 AM
> Kay C Lan wrote:
> 
> > To that I say, let it happen, let market forces play
> out, let capitalism do
> > it's thing.
> 
> Amen.  I can't help but wonder if underlying all of
> this may be that Steve Jobs doesn't have faith in Apple's
> ability to deliver an unquestionably superior experience.
> 
> He writes about how multi-platforms apps -- such as the
> ones we Rev folks make for the desktop -- lower the quality
> of the user experience.
> 
> If that were the case to any degree that mattered, people
> simply wouldn't buy our apps, and would instead choose a
> truly native alternative.
> 
> But in practice I see two factors that support using a
> "middleware" engine like Rev:
> 
> 
> 1. The quality difference is not significant enough to
> matter to users.
> 
>    My Rev-based app got a 4.5-out-of-5
> review at not just any mag,
>    but MacWorld, where the reviewer,
> editorial director Jason Snell,
>    knows a thing or two about Mac UI
> conventions.  His review
>    never mentioned that the text in my tab
> controls is one pixel
>    lower than spec.  Instead, he lauded
> its efficiency and ease
>    of use.
> 
>    The language doesn't make the software,
> the developers does.
>    You can make sloppy apps in Objective-C,
> and you can be
>    diligent with Rev.
> 
> 
> 2. In many cases, our is the only Mac offering available.
> 
>    Many of the 

RE: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Randall Lee Reetz]

Wow, I completely disagree.  Apps aren't apples.  Apps are apples and oranges 
and anteaters.  The basis of your argument is that materials have more to do 
with desire than the finished product.  That would be akin to art historians 
only comparing art by the paint used.

That steve jobs is up to something bigger than his words imply is obvious.  
There was a time when he had a conscience (in the person of the Woz).  There 
was a time when Jobs espoused absolute openness (even all board meetings and 
payroll was open to all employees at next).

But I do think that all of this has to do with a fed up reaction to the north 
korea of software houses: adobe.

It is just too bad he didn't come right out and say it...



-Original Message-
From: Michael Kann 
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 8:06 AM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

Richard,

Did you catch the misleading use of logic in Steve's anti-Flash explanation? He 
outlined a scenario whereby third-party developers would become dependent on 
Flash, thereby causing problems when Apple innovated faster than Adobe.

But think it through. The only reason that third-party developers would become 
dependent on Flash would be if they could sell enough of their products to make 
it worthwhile. That dependency only means that people want to buy products made 
with Flash (or RunRev).

If it were true that the products where somehow inferior then the consumers 
would figure it out and the developers would soon switch over also.  So the 
quality protection explanation is completely bogus. (Which you already know I'm 
sure).

Mike

 

--- On Tue, 5/4/10, Richard Gaskin  wrote:

> From: Richard Gaskin 
> Subject: Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)
> To: "How to use Revolution" 
> Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 9:56 AM
> Kay C Lan wrote:
> 
> > To that I say, let it happen, let market forces play
> out, let capitalism do
> > it's thing.
> 
> Amen.  I can't help but wonder if underlying all of
> this may be that Steve Jobs doesn't have faith in Apple's
> ability to deliver an unquestionably superior experience.
> 
> He writes about how multi-platforms apps -- such as the
> ones we Rev folks make for the desktop -- lower the quality
> of the user experience.
> 
> If that were the case to any degree that mattered, people
> simply wouldn't buy our apps, and would instead choose a
> truly native alternative.
> 
> But in practice I see two factors that support using a
> "middleware" engine like Rev:
> 
> 
> 1. The quality difference is not significant enough to
> matter to users.
> 
>    My Rev-based app got a 4.5-out-of-5
> review at not just any mag,
>    but MacWorld, where the reviewer,
> editorial director Jason Snell,
>    knows a thing or two about Mac UI
> conventions.  His review
>    never mentioned that the text in my tab
> controls is one pixel
>    lower than spec.  Instead, he lauded
> its efficiency and ease
>    of use.
> 
>    The language doesn't make the software,
> the developers does.
>    You can make sloppy apps in Objective-C,
> and you can be
>    diligent with Rev.
> 
> 
> 2. In many cases, our is the only Mac offering available.
> 
>    Many of the apps I make for my clients do
> not have Mac-native
>    competitors.  Instead, our
> competitors tell their Mac customers
>    to run their Windows apps under Parallels
> or Bootcamp.  Few
>    Windows developers bother to port to Mac
> -- why double
>    development costs only to gain an extra
> 10% market potential?
> 
>    If we weren't able to keep our costs down
> by using a single code
>    base to deliver to all three platforms,
> we probably wouldn't
>    deliver for OS X at all, since we make
> four to eight times as
>    much money from our Windows customers.
> 
>    But thanks to cross-platform tools like
> Rev, it's affordable
>    to deliver for the Mac audience, and even
> on our worst day our
>    UX better conforms to the Mac HIG that
> running a Win app under
>    emulation. :)
> 
>    If we were prevented from using Rev for
> OS X, OS X simply wouldn't
>    have some software categories addressed
> at all.
> 
>    Today this may not seem relevant on the
> iPhone OS with its
>    200,000 apps, but over time I think it'll
> start to become
>    noticeable, esp. in vertical categories
> such as those most
>    Rev developers make.
> 
> 
> If Steve Jobs believes that Apple can deliver an
> unquestionably superior user experience, one that matters
> enough to drive sales, why not let cross-platform

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Richard Gaskin]

David Bovill wrote:


Richard and others have made this point - but I think the figures are
misleading. From memory there are two figures that stick in my head - and it
would be great to have them discussed, trashed or verified on this list :)

First that 97% of mobile app revenues are on the iPhone - this one I find
hard to believe, though I can also understand how this could be possible.
I'll dig out the bookmark I have for that one if it proves to be
controversial :) Second that 80% or there abouts of mobile phone web
browsing of sites are from iPhone users - that one was from Mr Jobs KeyNote
- but there could be some independent source somewhere - again I can
understand why that may be the case - it is one thing having a phone that
can send MMS or browse the web in theory, and another to get users actually
to use the stuff, or better still actually pay for it (in terms of app or
media purchases) - iPhone OS is leagues ahead of everyone at the moment on
these fronts.

The figures that indicate the real battle are the projected ones and the
ones that refer to the (very) recent growth of Android - these are promising
but not yet solid.


Yet.  So much hinges on those three letters.

I don't think the market share stats I quoted from Computerworld/WSJ are 
any more or less misleading that others (for those that missed it 
they're here:

).

Stats are both rewarding and challenging because the different 
methodologies used provide different views into the data.  And like any 
study of macroeconomics, there will always be disagreement about what 
they mean. :)


Given the variety of projected outcomes from these various 
methodologies, from "iPhone will rule the world!" to Gartner's 
suggestion that iPhone OS will be overtaken by Android in under 24 
months (see 
), 
I think it's prudent to take them all into consideration.


It's true that the Apple audience in general, and particularly the 
subset of that audience that are early adopters of new technologies, 
tend to spend more on related third-party products like apps.  Being a 
sort of "boutique" vendor with high margins and focusing on quality over 
affordability, Apple has a solid niche that has earned it tens of 
billions in retained earnings, even with its 10% desktop share and 24% 
mobile share.


Consistent with this, while Apple has a 10% share on the desktop most of 
our products make 25% of their revenue from Mac sales, two and half 
times greater per capita than we get from the Win market.


But that is per capita.  As more capita come on board, the totals change 
dramatically.  Not everyone drives a Volvo, but everyone needs tires.


So for us app developers, another useful metric is app revenue.  But 
even here we see some variance when it comes to determining what these 
numbers mean.


Consider this attention-grabbing headline:

Estimate: Top 1000 iPad apps making $372k a day


That sounds like a gold mine!

Well, kinda.

If you examine the underlying math, it paints a picture we could 
politely call "mixed".


The crux of the numbers comes down to this portion of the article:

   By their reasoning, the top paid app in the store sells
   about 5k copies per day, with the number two app selling
   about 3k, the number three app about 2.5k, and so on.
   Vimov estimates that everyone in the top 100 list, when
   you add them all together, is making about US$304,058
   on any given day. The shelf drops off from there -- in
   the top 1000, developers are making about $372,000, and
   past that, they're obviously making less.


If I read that right, here's the breakdown:

The top 100 are collectively making $304k/day and the top 1000 are 
making $372k/day, which means that those who are in the top 1000 but 
below the top 100 (the lower 900) are collectively making only $68k. 
Split that among 900 apps and that's $75.50 per app per day.


And then there are the other 180,000 apps. With the top 100 collectively 
making $304k and the next 900 making $68k, at that dropoff rate we can 
expect the second best-selling 1000 apps in the AppStore to make about 
$17k split among them all, and the third best-selling 1000 to make about 4k.


Then it goes down from there for the other 150,000 apps, ranging from $4 
per day per app down to zero.


Meanwhile, the current minimum wage in California is $8/hr. In an 
eight-hour day a worker with very few skills can make $64. :)


So while an Apple advocate could say "iPhone OS deployment will make you 
rich!", a naysayer could say, "You can make more money flipping 
burgers".  :)  Same math, different perspectives.


While the iPhone OS is attractive to me and my clients, as is Android 
and the rest of the mobile market, I have to acknowledge that my deskt

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Jeff Massung]

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Neal Campbell  wrote:

> Hi Jeff
>
> But what happens if MSFT or Nintendo reject your app. They hold the same
> power of rejection that Apple does,



Not true. The idea of "reject" isn't quite the same in the console context
as it is for Apple and the App Store.

To simplify this greatly, Nintendo or MSFT actually agrees to your app long
before you ever get to the submission process. This is the process of
acquiring a title ID for your application. Some publishers do it late in the
process and others do it very early - even before they enter into
production. Once you have a title ID, your game has been "accepted".

It should be noted that the only times I've ever seen an app get rejected at
this stage is if it goes way beyond what the console wants to be equated
with in the public eye. For example, making a pornography game on the
Nintendo likely wouldn't get a title ID.

The submission process is very different from getting a title ID. This is
nothing more than a glorified QA. It's when the console maker ensures that
you handle crazy situations: player removes the DVD while the game is
running, unplugs a controller, turns off the console during a save, leaves
the game running for days on end to test for memory fragmentation/leaks,
etc. Your game may be "rejected" at this stage, but only is as much as you
fix the bugs and resubmit. Once the bugs are gone, you're "gold".

Jeff M.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Lynn Fredricks]

> So, summarizing:
> 
> - You are forced to purchase addition Apple hardware.
> - You are forced to distribute through Apple.
> 
> Bottom line: no competition throughout the entire life-cycle 
> of the final product.

At least you don't have to buy cartridges from Nintendo any more. That's was
a killer when I was involved in the console market back in the early 90s.

I agree with where you are coming from on this. End-to-end, every portion is
controlled.

If you re-read Thoughts on Flash, you can see that SJ views the mobile
market as a "next market" after the PC; its clear what the goal is.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Neal Campbell]

Hi Jeff

But what happens if MSFT or Nintendo reject your app. They hold the same
power of rejection that Apple does, only with apple you have bought aa extra
computer. They would also contend that since there is a healthy resale
market, you can buy a used apple that they do not gain a nickle from if you
purchase from a refurbisher.

Not defending them because I want 3.3.1 redone just like everyone on the
list but it helps to think like the opposition in these matters. But, in
reality, Jobs is trying to invent reasons why they don't want Adobe in their
market and it doesn't matter whether its rational or true. The SEC inquiry
is exactly what we needed!

Maybe its not a shame that MSFT has become the large unwieldy corporation
that it has become since it also means their "go for the throat" mentality
has been subdued! Apple has always been then same, only made much better
products (they lead rather than imitate) which probably makes them even more
sanguine. Plus, Jobs believes he is smarter than anyone else so the feedback
loop that curbs some of these tendencies has been chopped off.


Neal Campbell
Abroham Neal Software
www.abrohamnealsoftware.com
(540) 645 5394 NEW PHONE NUMBER

Amateur Radio: K3NC
Blog: http://www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/blog/
DXBase bug reports: email to ca...@dxbase.fogbugz.com
Abroham Neal forums: http:/www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/community/





On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Jeff Massung  wrote:

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Kay C Lan 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:21 PM, David Bovill  > >wrote:
> >
> > So to the article:
> >
> > > In forcing computer programmers to choose developing an Apple-exclusive
> > app
> > > over one that can be used on Apple and rival devices simultaneously,
> > critics
> > > say Apple is hampering competition since the expense involved in
> creating
> > an
> > > app will lead developers with limited budgets to focus on one format,
> not
> > > two.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, but I thought that's exactly the environment the Mac has lived in
> > since 1984. The vast majority of developers, not just limited budget
> > developers, have always chosen to develop for one platform only. If this
> is
> > an Anti-Trust issue now, why hasn't it been for the last 26 years?
> >  
> >
>
>
> I may have a unique perspective here given what I do for my job. So, if
> others might permit, I'm going to take the Apple situation and relate it to
> a situation I'm very close to... In the console video game world, let's say
> you want to make a Nintendo Wii game. Here's how this works:
>
> - You apply for a Nintendo license and pay some money. And almost always
> you'll pay more money for development hardware to test on.
>
> - You download Nintendo SDKs and program your game. Note, however, that you
> aren't *required* to use Nintendo's SDKs, and you could program your game
> in
> Lisp or Lua if you felt like it. The SDKs are just there to help if you
> want
> them.
>
> - Once your game is done, you submit it to Nintendo and they do what they
> call "lot check" (Sony calls it TRCs and MSFT calls it TCRs). This is their
> run at the program to ensure it doesn't crash, and doesn't prevent the user
> from using the features of the console, among other things.
>
> - After your game passes submission, you press the discs, box it, and stick
> it on store shelves... in whatever stores will purchase your game because
> they think they can sell it through to the final customer.
>
> - Each copy of your game that sells pays license fees to Nintendo.
>
> Now, let's compare this to Apple and talk about why Apple is bordering on
> Anti-Trust and Nintendo (and Sony/MSFT) is not.
>
> - Apple requires you to be a registered developer and it helps to buy
> target
> hardware. That's fine.
>
> - However, Apple also *requires* you to use their SDK. What makes that
> worse
> is due to how their SDK is put together, it's nearly impossible to use
> their
> SDK on a non-Mac OS X system. And because of how OS X is built, it doesn't
> run on non-Apple hardware. So, now you're locked into purchasing more Apple
> hardware just to program your app that has nothing to do with your target
> platform.
>
> - Once you application is complete, you only have a single point for
> distribution: the App Store. You can't sell it through Wal*Mart or Target
> or
> via some online site like Amazon. And the only legal way for the customer
> to
> install an app on their iP*d is to download it through the App Store.
>
> So, summarizing:
>
> - You are forced to purchase addition Apple hardware.
> - You are forced to distribute through Apple.
>
> Bottom line: no competition throughout the entire life-cycle of the final
> product.
>
> Jeff M.
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Neal Campbell]

Their argument on Javascript will be:
1. its ubiquitous (unlike Flash which is supposedly only on 98% of all PCs)
2. since you can only run Apple's browser and they wrote webkit, they can
control what you do with javascript
3. since Jobs mentioned that xx percent of reboots due to software under OS
X were caused by Flash, so it reflects on the Apple brand that the stability
of their software is poor. Adobe of course will say that its Apple's fault
they are not compatible with Flash since its on 98% of all computers and
Apple only has 9%.


Neal Campbell
Abroham Neal Software
www.abrohamnealsoftware.com
(540) 645 5394 NEW PHONE NUMBER

Amateur Radio: K3NC
Blog: http://www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/blog/
DXBase bug reports: email to ca...@dxbase.fogbugz.com
Abroham Neal forums: http:/www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/community/





On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Richard Gaskin
wrote:

> Kay C Lan wrote:
>
>  To that I say, let it happen, let market forces play out, let capitalism
>> do
>> it's thing.
>>
>
> Amen.  I can't help but wonder if underlying all of this may be that Steve
> Jobs doesn't have faith in Apple's ability to deliver an unquestionably
> superior experience.
>
> He writes about how multi-platforms apps -- such as the ones we Rev folks
> make for the desktop -- lower the quality of the user experience.
>
> If that were the case to any degree that mattered, people simply wouldn't
> buy our apps, and would instead choose a truly native alternative.
>
> But in practice I see two factors that support using a "middleware" engine
> like Rev:
>
>
> 1. The quality difference is not significant enough to matter to users.
>
>   My Rev-based app got a 4.5-out-of-5 review at not just any mag,
>   but MacWorld, where the reviewer, editorial director Jason Snell,
>   knows a thing or two about Mac UI conventions.  His review
>   never mentioned that the text in my tab controls is one pixel
>   lower than spec.  Instead, he lauded its efficiency and ease
>   of use.
>
>   The language doesn't make the software, the developers does.
>   You can make sloppy apps in Objective-C, and you can be
>   diligent with Rev.
>
>
> 2. In many cases, our is the only Mac offering available.
>
>   Many of the apps I make for my clients do not have Mac-native
>   competitors.  Instead, our competitors tell their Mac customers
>   to run their Windows apps under Parallels or Bootcamp.  Few
>   Windows developers bother to port to Mac -- why double
>   development costs only to gain an extra 10% market potential?
>
>   If we weren't able to keep our costs down by using a single code
>   base to deliver to all three platforms, we probably wouldn't
>   deliver for OS X at all, since we make four to eight times as
>   much money from our Windows customers.
>
>   But thanks to cross-platform tools like Rev, it's affordable
>   to deliver for the Mac audience, and even on our worst day our
>   UX better conforms to the Mac HIG that running a Win app under
>   emulation. :)
>
>   If we were prevented from using Rev for OS X, OS X simply wouldn't
>   have some software categories addressed at all.
>
>   Today this may not seem relevant on the iPhone OS with its
>   200,000 apps, but over time I think it'll start to become
>   noticeable, esp. in vertical categories such as those most
>   Rev developers make.
>
>
> If Steve Jobs believes that Apple can deliver an unquestionably superior
> user experience, one that matters enough to drive sales, why not let
> cross-platform tools continue to address vertical needs for iPhone OS as
> they do for OS X?
>
> Is he afraid that he'll see on the iPhone what we've all been seeing on the
> desktop for years, that it really doesn't matter to end-users what language
> is used to make an app as long as it enhances their workflow?
>
> Is he afraid that Apple won't be able to offer sufficiently compelling
> differentiation unless he locks developers into making apps for iPhone OS
> exclusively by arbitrarily raising their development costs to the point that
> they have to choose between iPhone or the rest of the world?
>
>
> I agree with your statement:
>
> Let the market decide if Rev apps are worthwhile.
>
>
>
> One significant irony in all of this is that Apple already allows one
> universal scripting language to be used to make app bundles for iPhone OS,
> with access to the accelerometer, GPS, multitouch, and other features common
> among modern mobile devices:  JavaScript, via WebKit.
>
> With JavaScript you can use a single code base to deliver apps to multiple
> mobile OSes, and you could even make them as ugly as you like, and they'll
> be fully compliant with the new license terms.
>
> If they allow that scripting language, why not also Rev?
>
> --
>  Richard Gaskin
>  Fourth World
>  Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
>  Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
>  revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
>
> ___

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Jeff Massung]

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Kay C Lan  wrote:

> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:21 PM, David Bovill  >wrote:
>
> So to the article:
>
> > In forcing computer programmers to choose developing an Apple-exclusive
> app
> > over one that can be used on Apple and rival devices simultaneously,
> critics
> > say Apple is hampering competition since the expense involved in creating
> an
> > app will lead developers with limited budgets to focus on one format, not
> > two.
> >
>
> Sorry, but I thought that's exactly the environment the Mac has lived in
> since 1984. The vast majority of developers, not just limited budget
> developers, have always chosen to develop for one platform only. If this is
> an Anti-Trust issue now, why hasn't it been for the last 26 years?
>  
>


I may have a unique perspective here given what I do for my job. So, if
others might permit, I'm going to take the Apple situation and relate it to
a situation I'm very close to... In the console video game world, let's say
you want to make a Nintendo Wii game. Here's how this works:

- You apply for a Nintendo license and pay some money. And almost always
you'll pay more money for development hardware to test on.

- You download Nintendo SDKs and program your game. Note, however, that you
aren't *required* to use Nintendo's SDKs, and you could program your game in
Lisp or Lua if you felt like it. The SDKs are just there to help if you want
them.

- Once your game is done, you submit it to Nintendo and they do what they
call "lot check" (Sony calls it TRCs and MSFT calls it TCRs). This is their
run at the program to ensure it doesn't crash, and doesn't prevent the user
from using the features of the console, among other things.

- After your game passes submission, you press the discs, box it, and stick
it on store shelves... in whatever stores will purchase your game because
they think they can sell it through to the final customer.

- Each copy of your game that sells pays license fees to Nintendo.

Now, let's compare this to Apple and talk about why Apple is bordering on
Anti-Trust and Nintendo (and Sony/MSFT) is not.

- Apple requires you to be a registered developer and it helps to buy target
hardware. That's fine.

- However, Apple also *requires* you to use their SDK. What makes that worse
is due to how their SDK is put together, it's nearly impossible to use their
SDK on a non-Mac OS X system. And because of how OS X is built, it doesn't
run on non-Apple hardware. So, now you're locked into purchasing more Apple
hardware just to program your app that has nothing to do with your target
platform.

- Once you application is complete, you only have a single point for
distribution: the App Store. You can't sell it through Wal*Mart or Target or
via some online site like Amazon. And the only legal way for the customer to
install an app on their iP*d is to download it through the App Store.

So, summarizing:

- You are forced to purchase addition Apple hardware.
- You are forced to distribute through Apple.

Bottom line: no competition throughout the entire life-cycle of the final
product.

Jeff M.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[René Micout]

It is on the road, no ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703612804575222553091495816.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_LEFTTopWhatNews

Particulary at the end of the article of the Wall Street Journal :
"Apple could try to head off trouble with antitrust enforcers by changing the 
terms of its developer agreement, one person familiar with the situation said."

??!!

Le 4 mai 2010 à 17:06, Marty Knapp a écrit :

> Well put, Richard. Let's hope that Apple has a change of mind on this one.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Marty Knapp]

Well put, Richard. Let's hope that Apple has a change of mind on this one.

Marty Knapp

Kay C Lan wrote:

To that I say, let it happen, let market forces play out, let 
capitalism do

it's thing.


Amen.  I can't help but wonder if underlying all of this may be that 
Steve Jobs doesn't have faith in Apple's ability to deliver an 
unquestionably superior experience.


He writes about how multi-platforms apps -- such as the ones we Rev 
folks make for the desktop -- lower the quality of the user experience.


If that were the case to any degree that mattered, people simply 
wouldn't buy our apps, and would instead choose a truly native 
alternative.


But in practice I see two factors that support using a "middleware" 
engine like Rev:



1. The quality difference is not significant enough to matter to users.

   My Rev-based app got a 4.5-out-of-5 review at not just any mag,
   but MacWorld, where the reviewer, editorial director Jason Snell,
   knows a thing or two about Mac UI conventions.  His review
   never mentioned that the text in my tab controls is one pixel
   lower than spec.  Instead, he lauded its efficiency and ease
   of use.

   The language doesn't make the software, the developers does.
   You can make sloppy apps in Objective-C, and you can be
   diligent with Rev.


2. In many cases, our is the only Mac offering available.

   Many of the apps I make for my clients do not have Mac-native
   competitors.  Instead, our competitors tell their Mac customers
   to run their Windows apps under Parallels or Bootcamp.  Few
   Windows developers bother to port to Mac -- why double
   development costs only to gain an extra 10% market potential?

   If we weren't able to keep our costs down by using a single code
   base to deliver to all three platforms, we probably wouldn't
   deliver for OS X at all, since we make four to eight times as
   much money from our Windows customers.

   But thanks to cross-platform tools like Rev, it's affordable
   to deliver for the Mac audience, and even on our worst day our
   UX better conforms to the Mac HIG that running a Win app under
   emulation. :)

   If we were prevented from using Rev for OS X, OS X simply wouldn't
   have some software categories addressed at all.

   Today this may not seem relevant on the iPhone OS with its
   200,000 apps, but over time I think it'll start to become
   noticeable, esp. in vertical categories such as those most
   Rev developers make.


If Steve Jobs believes that Apple can deliver an unquestionably 
superior user experience, one that matters enough to drive sales, why 
not let cross-platform tools continue to address vertical needs for 
iPhone OS as they do for OS X?


Is he afraid that he'll see on the iPhone what we've all been seeing 
on the desktop for years, that it really doesn't matter to end-users 
what language is used to make an app as long as it enhances their 
workflow?


Is he afraid that Apple won't be able to offer sufficiently compelling 
differentiation unless he locks developers into making apps for iPhone 
OS exclusively by arbitrarily raising their development costs to the 
point that they have to choose between iPhone or the rest of the world?



I agree with your statement:

Let the market decide if Rev apps are worthwhile.



One significant irony in all of this is that Apple already allows one 
universal scripting language to be used to make app bundles for iPhone 
OS, with access to the accelerometer, GPS, multitouch, and other 
features common among modern mobile devices:  JavaScript, via WebKit.


With JavaScript you can use a single code base to deliver apps to 
multiple mobile OSes, and you could even make them as ugly as you 
like, and they'll be fully compliant with the new license terms.


If they allow that scripting language, why not also Rev?

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
 revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Michael Kann]

Richard,

Did you catch the misleading use of logic in Steve's anti-Flash explanation? He 
outlined a scenario whereby third-party developers would become dependent on 
Flash, thereby causing problems when Apple innovated faster than Adobe.

But think it through. The only reason that third-party developers would become 
dependent on Flash would be if they could sell enough of their products to make 
it worthwhile. That dependency only means that people want to buy products made 
with Flash (or RunRev).

If it were true that the products where somehow inferior then the consumers 
would figure it out and the developers would soon switch over also.  So the 
quality protection explanation is completely bogus. (Which you already know I'm 
sure).

Mike

 

--- On Tue, 5/4/10, Richard Gaskin  wrote:

> From: Richard Gaskin 
> Subject: Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)
> To: "How to use Revolution" 
> Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 9:56 AM
> Kay C Lan wrote:
> 
> > To that I say, let it happen, let market forces play
> out, let capitalism do
> > it's thing.
> 
> Amen.  I can't help but wonder if underlying all of
> this may be that Steve Jobs doesn't have faith in Apple's
> ability to deliver an unquestionably superior experience.
> 
> He writes about how multi-platforms apps -- such as the
> ones we Rev folks make for the desktop -- lower the quality
> of the user experience.
> 
> If that were the case to any degree that mattered, people
> simply wouldn't buy our apps, and would instead choose a
> truly native alternative.
> 
> But in practice I see two factors that support using a
> "middleware" engine like Rev:
> 
> 
> 1. The quality difference is not significant enough to
> matter to users.
> 
>    My Rev-based app got a 4.5-out-of-5
> review at not just any mag,
>    but MacWorld, where the reviewer,
> editorial director Jason Snell,
>    knows a thing or two about Mac UI
> conventions.  His review
>    never mentioned that the text in my tab
> controls is one pixel
>    lower than spec.  Instead, he lauded
> its efficiency and ease
>    of use.
> 
>    The language doesn't make the software,
> the developers does.
>    You can make sloppy apps in Objective-C,
> and you can be
>    diligent with Rev.
> 
> 
> 2. In many cases, our is the only Mac offering available.
> 
>    Many of the apps I make for my clients do
> not have Mac-native
>    competitors.  Instead, our
> competitors tell their Mac customers
>    to run their Windows apps under Parallels
> or Bootcamp.  Few
>    Windows developers bother to port to Mac
> -- why double
>    development costs only to gain an extra
> 10% market potential?
> 
>    If we weren't able to keep our costs down
> by using a single code
>    base to deliver to all three platforms,
> we probably wouldn't
>    deliver for OS X at all, since we make
> four to eight times as
>    much money from our Windows customers.
> 
>    But thanks to cross-platform tools like
> Rev, it's affordable
>    to deliver for the Mac audience, and even
> on our worst day our
>    UX better conforms to the Mac HIG that
> running a Win app under
>    emulation. :)
> 
>    If we were prevented from using Rev for
> OS X, OS X simply wouldn't
>    have some software categories addressed
> at all.
> 
>    Today this may not seem relevant on the
> iPhone OS with its
>    200,000 apps, but over time I think it'll
> start to become
>    noticeable, esp. in vertical categories
> such as those most
>    Rev developers make.
> 
> 
> If Steve Jobs believes that Apple can deliver an
> unquestionably superior user experience, one that matters
> enough to drive sales, why not let cross-platform tools
> continue to address vertical needs for iPhone OS as they do
> for OS X?
> 
> Is he afraid that he'll see on the iPhone what we've all
> been seeing on the desktop for years, that it really doesn't
> matter to end-users what language is used to make an app as
> long as it enhances their workflow?
> 
> Is he afraid that Apple won't be able to offer sufficiently
> compelling differentiation unless he locks developers into
> making apps for iPhone OS exclusively by arbitrarily raising
> their development costs to the point that they have to
> choose between iPhone or the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I agree with your statement:
> 
> Let the market decide if Rev apps are worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> One significant irony in all of this is that Apple already
> allows one universal scripting language to be used to make
> app bundles for

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[René Micout]

YES !!

Le 4 mai 2010 à 16:56, Richard Gaskin a écrit :

> Kay C Lan wrote:
> 
>> To that I say, let it happen, let market forces play out, let capitalism do
>> it's thing.
> 
> Amen.  I can't help but wonder if underlying all of this may be that Steve 
> Jobs doesn't have faith in Apple's ability to deliver an unquestionably 
> superior experience.
> 
> He writes about how multi-platforms apps -- such as the ones we Rev folks 
> make for the desktop -- lower the quality of the user experience.
> 
> If that were the case to any degree that mattered, people simply wouldn't buy 
> our apps, and would instead choose a truly native alternative.
> 
> But in practice I see two factors that support using a "middleware" engine 
> like Rev:
> 
> 
> 1. The quality difference is not significant enough to matter to users.
> 
>   My Rev-based app got a 4.5-out-of-5 review at not just any mag,
>   but MacWorld, where the reviewer, editorial director Jason Snell,
>   knows a thing or two about Mac UI conventions.  His review
>   never mentioned that the text in my tab controls is one pixel
>   lower than spec.  Instead, he lauded its efficiency and ease
>   of use.
> 
>   The language doesn't make the software, the developers does.
>   You can make sloppy apps in Objective-C, and you can be
>   diligent with Rev.
> 
> 
> 2. In many cases, our is the only Mac offering available.
> 
>   Many of the apps I make for my clients do not have Mac-native
>   competitors.  Instead, our competitors tell their Mac customers
>   to run their Windows apps under Parallels or Bootcamp.  Few
>   Windows developers bother to port to Mac -- why double
>   development costs only to gain an extra 10% market potential?
> 
>   If we weren't able to keep our costs down by using a single code
>   base to deliver to all three platforms, we probably wouldn't
>   deliver for OS X at all, since we make four to eight times as
>   much money from our Windows customers.
> 
>   But thanks to cross-platform tools like Rev, it's affordable
>   to deliver for the Mac audience, and even on our worst day our
>   UX better conforms to the Mac HIG that running a Win app under
>   emulation. :)
> 
>   If we were prevented from using Rev for OS X, OS X simply wouldn't
>   have some software categories addressed at all.
> 
>   Today this may not seem relevant on the iPhone OS with its
>   200,000 apps, but over time I think it'll start to become
>   noticeable, esp. in vertical categories such as those most
>   Rev developers make.
> 
> 
> If Steve Jobs believes that Apple can deliver an unquestionably superior user 
> experience, one that matters enough to drive sales, why not let 
> cross-platform tools continue to address vertical needs for iPhone OS as they 
> do for OS X?
> 
> Is he afraid that he'll see on the iPhone what we've all been seeing on the 
> desktop for years, that it really doesn't matter to end-users what language 
> is used to make an app as long as it enhances their workflow?
> 
> Is he afraid that Apple won't be able to offer sufficiently compelling 
> differentiation unless he locks developers into making apps for iPhone OS 
> exclusively by arbitrarily raising their development costs to the point that 
> they have to choose between iPhone or the rest of the world?
> 
> 
> I agree with your statement:
> 
> Let the market decide if Rev apps are worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> One significant irony in all of this is that Apple already allows one 
> universal scripting language to be used to make app bundles for iPhone OS, 
> with access to the accelerometer, GPS, multitouch, and other features common 
> among modern mobile devices:  JavaScript, via WebKit.
> 
> With JavaScript you can use a single code base to deliver apps to multiple 
> mobile OSes, and you could even make them as ugly as you like, and they'll be 
> fully compliant with the new license terms.
> 
> If they allow that scripting language, why not also Rev?
> 
> --
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World
> Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
> Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
> revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Richard Gaskin]

Kay C Lan wrote:


To that I say, let it happen, let market forces play out, let capitalism do
it's thing.


Amen.  I can't help but wonder if underlying all of this may be that 
Steve Jobs doesn't have faith in Apple's ability to deliver an 
unquestionably superior experience.


He writes about how multi-platforms apps -- such as the ones we Rev 
folks make for the desktop -- lower the quality of the user experience.


If that were the case to any degree that mattered, people simply 
wouldn't buy our apps, and would instead choose a truly native alternative.


But in practice I see two factors that support using a "middleware" 
engine like Rev:



1. The quality difference is not significant enough to matter to users.

   My Rev-based app got a 4.5-out-of-5 review at not just any mag,
   but MacWorld, where the reviewer, editorial director Jason Snell,
   knows a thing or two about Mac UI conventions.  His review
   never mentioned that the text in my tab controls is one pixel
   lower than spec.  Instead, he lauded its efficiency and ease
   of use.

   The language doesn't make the software, the developers does.
   You can make sloppy apps in Objective-C, and you can be
   diligent with Rev.


2. In many cases, our is the only Mac offering available.

   Many of the apps I make for my clients do not have Mac-native
   competitors.  Instead, our competitors tell their Mac customers
   to run their Windows apps under Parallels or Bootcamp.  Few
   Windows developers bother to port to Mac -- why double
   development costs only to gain an extra 10% market potential?

   If we weren't able to keep our costs down by using a single code
   base to deliver to all three platforms, we probably wouldn't
   deliver for OS X at all, since we make four to eight times as
   much money from our Windows customers.

   But thanks to cross-platform tools like Rev, it's affordable
   to deliver for the Mac audience, and even on our worst day our
   UX better conforms to the Mac HIG that running a Win app under
   emulation. :)

   If we were prevented from using Rev for OS X, OS X simply wouldn't
   have some software categories addressed at all.

   Today this may not seem relevant on the iPhone OS with its
   200,000 apps, but over time I think it'll start to become
   noticeable, esp. in vertical categories such as those most
   Rev developers make.


If Steve Jobs believes that Apple can deliver an unquestionably superior 
user experience, one that matters enough to drive sales, why not let 
cross-platform tools continue to address vertical needs for iPhone OS as 
they do for OS X?


Is he afraid that he'll see on the iPhone what we've all been seeing on 
the desktop for years, that it really doesn't matter to end-users what 
language is used to make an app as long as it enhances their workflow?


Is he afraid that Apple won't be able to offer sufficiently compelling 
differentiation unless he locks developers into making apps for iPhone 
OS exclusively by arbitrarily raising their development costs to the 
point that they have to choose between iPhone or the rest of the world?



I agree with your statement:

Let the market decide if Rev apps are worthwhile.



One significant irony in all of this is that Apple already allows one 
universal scripting language to be used to make app bundles for iPhone 
OS, with access to the accelerometer, GPS, multitouch, and other 
features common among modern mobile devices:  JavaScript, via WebKit.


With JavaScript you can use a single code base to deliver apps to 
multiple mobile OSes, and you could even make them as ugly as you like, 
and they'll be fully compliant with the new license terms.


If they allow that scripting language, why not also Rev?

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
 revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[René Micout]

And what about that ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703612804575222553091495816.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_LEFTTopWhatNews

Particulary at the end of the article of the Wall Street Journal :
"Apple could try to head off trouble with antitrust enforcers by changing the 
terms of its developer agreement, one person familiar with the situation said."

René

Le 4 mai 2010 à 14:00, Sarah Reichelt a écrit :

>> Like a few others on this list I am now pretty convinced that the PC market
>> is about to be dramatically overtaken by the new mobile market in terms of
>> sales and new software developments. Apple and others will be quite happy to
>> leave the desktop market to the web and to open source strategies - they
>> simply will not be interested in closing this market - let Google have it.
>> They (ie Apple and others) clearly want to dominate the mobile market in the
>> way that Microsoft succeeded to with the 1990's desktop market.
> 
> I completely agree with this assessment.
> 
> 
>> Regulators and commentators are now wise to those tricks and will kick up a
>> fuss early if they see moves like this coming - there are a lot of people
>> and governments who want to keep these new markets open, and global
>> networked markets do not stay open by themselves - they can and have decayed
>> into monopolies, and mathematical models clearly show this to be an inherent
>> property of free markets in certain situations - we don't need a conspiracy
>> theory to explain it.
>> 
>> It is not unreasonable to view this as an early stage in the battle between
>> two different types of mobile market place, one closed and dominated by a
>> single proprietary player and the other open. I think regulators would only
>> be doing their Job (pun intended) to take a closer look at this - better
>> early than late given how long these things take to go through the courts
>> and how fast this market is going to move.
> 
> It is important to remember that there is nothing illegal about having
> a monopoly. But as Microsoft showed, it is possible to use the power
> that a monopoly gives, to perform illegal acts.
> This is a distinction that is ignored by most bloggers, but I would
> hope that the denizens of this list are more intelligent than that.
> 
> Regards,
> Sarah
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Sarah Reichelt]

> Like a few others on this list I am now pretty convinced that the PC market
> is about to be dramatically overtaken by the new mobile market in terms of
> sales and new software developments. Apple and others will be quite happy to
> leave the desktop market to the web and to open source strategies - they
> simply will not be interested in closing this market - let Google have it.
> They (ie Apple and others) clearly want to dominate the mobile market in the
> way that Microsoft succeeded to with the 1990's desktop market.

I completely agree with this assessment.


> Regulators and commentators are now wise to those tricks and will kick up a
> fuss early if they see moves like this coming - there are a lot of people
> and governments who want to keep these new markets open, and global
> networked markets do not stay open by themselves - they can and have decayed
> into monopolies, and mathematical models clearly show this to be an inherent
> property of free markets in certain situations - we don't need a conspiracy
> theory to explain it.
>
> It is not unreasonable to view this as an early stage in the battle between
> two different types of mobile market place, one closed and dominated by a
> single proprietary player and the other open. I think regulators would only
> be doing their Job (pun intended) to take a closer look at this - better
> early than late given how long these things take to go through the courts
> and how fast this market is going to move.

It is important to remember that there is nothing illegal about having
a monopoly. But as Microsoft showed, it is possible to use the power
that a monopoly gives, to perform illegal acts.
This is a distinction that is ignored by most bloggers, but I would
hope that the denizens of this list are more intelligent than that.

Regards,
Sarah
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[David Bovill]

Just a minor point on market share stats - of interest I think because of
its relevance to developing on mobile platforms for this list:

On 4 May 2010 08:46, Kay C Lan  wrote:

> > Indeed, though Apple has the most applications, it is a distant second in
> > terms of operating system market share. According to comScore, RIM, which
> > makes the BlackBerry, has a 42 percent share, while Apple's take is 25
> > percent. Microsoft has 15 percent and Google's Android software has 9
> > percent.
>
> Sorry, Jobs doesn't control 95% of the market share, he isn't even ranked
> No
> 1? There even seems to be more players and a more even spread of market
> share, than in the PC OS arena, so why is this a competition problem?
>

Richard and others have made this point - but I think the figures are
misleading. From memory there are two figures that stick in my head - and it
would be great to have them discussed, trashed or verified on this list :)

First that 97% of mobile app revenues are on the iPhone - this one I find
hard to believe, though I can also understand how this could be possible.
I'll dig out the bookmark I have for that one if it proves to be
controversial :) Second that 80% or there abouts of mobile phone web
browsing of sites are from iPhone users - that one was from Mr Jobs KeyNote
- but there could be some independent source somewhere - again I can
understand why that may be the case - it is one thing having a phone that
can send MMS or browse the web in theory, and another to get users actually
to use the stuff, or better still actually pay for it (in terms of app or
media purchases) - iPhone OS is leagues ahead of everyone at the moment on
these fronts.

The figures that indicate the real battle are the projected ones and the
ones that refer to the (very) recent growth of Android - these are promising
but not yet solid.


--

And now for a - "sorry I can't help this - this is way more fun than getting
down to work - please skip if you feel otherwise.

...

Apple has a good shot at cornering this market - that is establishing a de
facto (and legally supported) monopoly, just as Microsoft did in the
mid-80's (without the legal protection), and the real battle looks like
between Android and iOS, one of them a fully open platform in which
consumers and producers can freely operate in market terms and another - a
closed market controlled by Apple. It is not a monopoly yet (because the
market is young), but everyone is now much more sensitive to these issues
and the tactics companies can play in network economies - and everyone is
looking to the future here, and by the future we are talking a few years.

Like a few others on this list I am now pretty convinced that the PC market
is about to be dramatically overtaken by the new mobile market in terms of
sales and new software developments. Apple and others will be quite happy to
leave the desktop market to the web and to open source strategies - they
simply will not be interested in closing this market - let Google have it.
They (ie Apple and others) clearly want to dominate the mobile market in the
way that Microsoft succeeded to with the 1990's desktop market.

Regulators and commentators are now wise to those tricks and will kick up a
fuss early if they see moves like this coming - there are a lot of people
and governments who want to keep these new markets open, and global
networked markets do not stay open by themselves - they can and have decayed
into monopolies, and mathematical models clearly show this to be an inherent
property of free markets in certain situations - we don't need a conspiracy
theory to explain it.

It is not unreasonable to view this as an early stage in the battle between
two different types of mobile market place, one closed and dominated by a
single proprietary player and the other open. I think regulators would only
be doing their Job (pun intended) to take a closer look at this - better
early than late given how long these things take to go through the courts
and how fast this market is going to move.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Peter Alcibiades]

>If an iPhone Developer wants to port his App to a Android
> device, he'll be up against the exact same hurdles as an Android developer
> deciding to port to the iPhone.

My only real interest in this question is the implications for Rev and its
future direction and in particular the implications for a Linux/Android
version.

But this is obviously false.  There is no Android App Store which is the
only vehicle for marketing your stuff.  There is no non-disclosure
agreement.  There is no developer agreement.  You can use any language you
want.  Multiple vendors can make Android hardware.  Multiple carriers can
supply them. 

Of course they are not up against the 'exact same hurdles'.  The big hurdle
in this case is an Apple policy hurdle.

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Rep-Apples-actual-response-to-the-Flash-issue-tp2124023p2125255.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[René Micout]

Le 4 mai 2010 à 09:46, Kay C Lan a écrit :

> Sorry, people are now choosing to develop for Apple's competitors so this is
> the basis for an Anti-Trust inquiry because it's stifling competition? I
> clearly don't understand something here. Yes it is unfortunate that one
> option has been removed, but as far as I can tell it's a completely level
> playing field. If an iPhone Developer wants to port his App to a Android
> device, he'll be up against the exact same hurdles as an Android developer
> deciding to port to the iPhone.

Yes, Kay, I think that !
This does not help my case but I think it's just...
René___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Kay C Lan]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:21 PM, David Bovill wrote:

>
> I think Steve Jobs underestimated developer reaction in the age of the
> internet and open source - he can't get away with the same sort of things
> quite as easily as companies could last century. I also doubt he will take
> very well to the sudden realization that he has turned from underdog
> fighting the cause of good design, to a one-man-band lock-in merchant in
> the
> eyes of quite so many young developers.
>
> RunRev needs all of this + the anti-trust threat to make sure revMobile on
> the iPhone does not fall out of this as collateral damage - the more
> pressure the more reason Apple will have to negotiate exceptions.
> Especially
> in Runrev can offer some technological features that are specific to the
> iPhone that CS5 does not offer? Google must be loving this.
>
>
> Let me start off by saying I very much hope that Rev will be able to do
it's thing on the iPhone and iPad. I also believe that there could have been
much more compromise or middle ground taken by Steve Jobs in the Flash
decision. But, I don't know all the facts. I've read another thread here
with interest about starting a RevStore and am bemused by comments about the
HyperCard days and the overwhelming number of poor quality Apps, the
enormous amount of manpower spent shifting through them, and the negative
image those Apps created. Basically some have made a Steve Jobs like
decision that a RevStore wouldn't be a good idea because so many poor
quality Rev Apps would reflect poorly on the company.

So to the article:

In forcing computer programmers to choose developing an Apple-exclusive app
> over one that can be used on Apple and rival devices simultaneously, critics
> say Apple is hampering competition since the expense involved in creating an
> app will lead developers with limited budgets to focus on one format, not
> two.
>

Sorry, but I thought that's exactly the environment the Mac has lived in
since 1984. The vast majority of developers, not just limited budget
developers, have always chosen to develop for one platform only. If this is
an Anti-Trust issue now, why hasn't it been for the last 26 years?

Shaun Meredith, a former Apple employee who runs software development
> company InfoBridge, said that as a result of Apple's rule change, some of
> his customers are choosing to finance apps that are compatible with all of
> Apple's competitors instead of those that work only with the iPhone or iPad.
>
>

Sorry, people are now choosing to develop for Apple's competitors so this is
the basis for an Anti-Trust inquiry because it's stifling competition? I
clearly don't understand something here. Yes it is unfortunate that one
option has been removed, but as far as I can tell it's a completely level
playing field. If an iPhone Developer wants to port his App to a Android
device, he'll be up against the exact same hurdles as an Android developer
deciding to port to the iPhone.

Indeed, though Apple has the most applications, it is a distant second in
> terms of operating system market share. According to comScore, RIM, which
> makes the BlackBerry, has a 42 percent share, while Apple's take is 25
> percent. Microsoft has 15 percent and Google's Android software has 9
> percent.
>

Sorry, Jobs doesn't control 95% of the market share, he isn't even ranked No
1? There even seems to be more players and a more even spread of market
share, than in the PC OS arena, so why is this a competition problem?

At this point the only line of argument I can see is "we think Steve Jobs
has shot himself in the foot with this decision, a vast majority of
developers will no longer develop for the iPhone, most Apps will be on other
mobile phone systems, Apple will go bust, therefore there will be less
competition"

To that I say, let it happen, let market forces play out, let capitalism do
it's thing. If Steve wants to make his 'walled garden' experience, where
everything is vetted by him, are made just so, and will never crash his
iPhone; then let the market, the buying public decide if he's right.

A while back I was chatting with a colleague, an avid Mac hater, Steve Jobs
despiser and committed Nokia user. He'd just bought an iPhone. Why? Because
on more than one occasion, during important business trips, his Nokia had
frozen on him leaving him very out of contact and very embarrassed. He
assumed it was due to one of the many Apps he had on the thing, but he
couldn't be bothered figuring out which one, he just needed a phone that
worked.

Once America was great because it allowed greatness to be fed by capitalism.
Now America wallows in mediocrity because bureaucracy decides which
companies will survive under Chapter 11 protection, and which ones are too
big to fail, and what the consumer gets, and oh, wait a minute, that's
not capitalism.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, uns

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[stephen barncard]

Remembering the dark days in the 90s when I had to defend my use of the Mac
platform at work every day, seeing this comment on a CNN story today made me
smile..

"If you are going to use Apple news to report tech, where is the PC news? I
have never seen any. When you do cover it to "seem" unbiased, who will you
choose, Sony Viao, Dell, HP, Toshiba? So many to choose from."



On 3 May 2010 08:21, David Bovill  wrote:

> Yes - I hope it ramps things up.
>
> On 3 May 2010 15:34, Lynn Fredricks  wrote:
>
> > > Is this true ?
> > > http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/an_antitrust_app_buvCWcJ
> > > djFoLD5vBSkguGO
> >
> > I hope you all don't mind my splitting this topic away from the others.
> >
> > If this is true, it may actually bring about some desirable changes.
> While
> > a
> > few squeaking developers may not have any impact on the state of
> > Revolution-on-iPhone/iPad, this sort of thing can have "shareholder
> value"
> > consequences.
> >
>
> I think Steve Jobs underestimated developer reaction in the age of the
> internet and open source - he can't get away with the same sort of things
> quite as easily as companies could last century. I also doubt he will take
> very well to the sudden realization that he has turned from underdog
> fighting the cause of good design, to a one-man-band lock-in merchant in
> the
> eyes of quite so many young developers.
>
> RunRev needs all of this + the anti-trust threat to make sure revMobile on
> the iPhone does not fall out of this as collateral damage - the more
> pressure the more reason Apple will have to negotiate exceptions.
> Especially
> in Runrev can offer some technological features that are specific to the
> iPhone that CS5 does not offer? Google must be loving this.
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>



-- 
-
Stephen Barncard
Back home in SF
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[David Bovill]

Yes - I hope it ramps things up.

On 3 May 2010 15:34, Lynn Fredricks  wrote:

> > Is this true ?
> > http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/an_antitrust_app_buvCWcJ
> > djFoLD5vBSkguGO
>
> I hope you all don't mind my splitting this topic away from the others.
>
> If this is true, it may actually bring about some desirable changes. While
> a
> few squeaking developers may not have any impact on the state of
> Revolution-on-iPhone/iPad, this sort of thing can have "shareholder value"
> consequences.
>

I think Steve Jobs underestimated developer reaction in the age of the
internet and open source - he can't get away with the same sort of things
quite as easily as companies could last century. I also doubt he will take
very well to the sudden realization that he has turned from underdog
fighting the cause of good design, to a one-man-band lock-in merchant in the
eyes of quite so many young developers.

RunRev needs all of this + the anti-trust threat to make sure revMobile on
the iPhone does not fall out of this as collateral damage - the more
pressure the more reason Apple will have to negotiate exceptions. Especially
in Runrev can offer some technological features that are specific to the
iPhone that CS5 does not offer? Google must be loving this.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Apple Anti-Trust (was Apples actual response to the Flash issue)

[Lynn Fredricks]

> Is this true ?
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/an_antitrust_app_buvCWcJ
> djFoLD5vBSkguGO

I hope you all don't mind my splitting this topic away from the others.

If this is true, it may actually bring about some desirable changes. While a
few squeaking developers may not have any impact on the state of
Revolution-on-iPhone/iPad, this sort of thing can have "shareholder value"
consequences.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution