Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, David, Thresher
Skrying wrote:You're saying that using the available tools is a bad thing?
Skrying wrote:So again; how in the hell can you support this change? I've already outlined, and now numerous times, how it directly hurts consumers in the long and short runs. You've done absolutely nothing to prove your argument and what you've said is based entirely on false assumptions.
End User wrote:Crippling developers by completely disabling platforms which let the devs shorten development cycles is good for everyone?lordT wrote:This doesn't just target Adobe. A number of successful platforms including Unity, Titanium, MonoTouch and a number of others fall into the cross hair too.
Bang on.
End User wrote:Jesus Christ. Really, you have no clue as to what the heck is going on. There is no such thing as coding for the iPhone OS platform. You target the compiler bundled with the SDK. That's it. It's like saying Windows will only allow DX based games on it. Saying which language the program has to be written in is patently ludicrous.lordT wrote:They're just making counter-intuitive petty rules to hurt their developers.
It hurts the developers using the tools you mentioned. Developers that have been coding specifically for iPhone OS are smiling.
End User wrote:Stop being daft and putting words in my mouth.lordT wrote:End User wrote:You're an idiot and you should shut up right now. You have no idea as to what the unholy **** you're talking about. Please, just shut up.Apple is basically telling developers to stop being lazy and write real iPhone/iPad apps via Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript. I wish Apple did this earlier.
Whoa. Touchy.
Have you been hit by the changes to 3.3.1? If so, are you going to abandon the iPhone OS platform to improve your time management and productivity?
lordT wrote:Lots of developers, including myself, are just a touch annoyed at being strong armed into either developing solely for the iPhone platform/abandoning it or spending more time and money developing multiple code bases for the same application. It's not the end of the world as far as developing is concerned, it's a matter of adapting to a different work flow but few of the developers are happy with the change. **** changes like these and the draconian review process doesn't make the Apple platform a developer's dream but right now the App Store counts for about 35-45% of our downloads so yes, we'll keep developing for it. No point in completely abandoning the platform just because the people behind it are putting up obstacles for the developers.
Skrying wrote:End User wrote:Three years ago Apple was not in the smartphone market. Two years ago Google was not in the smartphone market. Recently we saw the announcement of Windows Phone 7 and Kin. Where is this lack of competition you speak of.
Which is the entire point! We want each one of those options to grow and be strong. We want applications available on one to be available for the other and for them to be great and useful! That's the consumers dream! For each platform to be great and useful to the consumer for even the worst choice to still be very good. By Apple forcing developers to make a choice, a choice that helps no one but Apple, we're hurting those. You're making my argument for me.
tanker27 wrote:Look, I'm not trying to be a dick here but you don't get the point. I'm not arguing that Apple isn't allowed to protect it's hardware. I just don't like being given asinine reasons for that. Saying this move is to protect the quality of apps on the platform is a lie. I've seen plenty of native obj C that are a bunch of tosh as well as apps written with MonoTouch/Titanium/Unity that completely leverage the power of the iPhone OS. Dictating which language an application is to be written in borders on arrogance and I don't appreciate it.NO, No, No! Its a business decision on Apple's and your part. Apple made the rules to protect its hardware it up to the developer to decide if they want to follow said rules.
tanker27 wrote:I know it's a lot of money for a platform which is why we're continuing to develop for the platform. But know that the platform is only as powerful as the developers/apps behind it. The completely opaque review process is a pain as it is. This change will make it a little more harder for the developers.And as you so quaintly stated youre not giving that up because iTunes accounts for 35-45% of your downloads. Thats a lot for any developer for any one platform.
tanker27 wrote:I do have the right to complain if they decide to make massive changes to the agreements whilst giving obtuse, implausible reasons.Dont blame Apple for any of your business decisions.
lordT wrote:Look, I'm not trying to be a dick here but you don't get the point. I'm not arguing that Apple isn't allowed to protect it's hardware. I just don't like being given asinine reasons for that. Saying this move is to protect the quality of apps on the platform is a lie. I've seen plenty of native obj C that are a bunch of tosh as well as apps written with MonoTouch/Titanium/Unity that completely leverage the power of the iPhone OS. Dictating which language an application is to be written in borders on arrogance and I don't appreciate it.
tanker27 wrote:Far reach is the right word. MonoTouch is open source and free. You're free to sift through the code to catch these shortcuts you're talking about.I too am not trying to be a dick but you have to realize that Apple is competing against other formats and cellphones manufacturers. Also Apple has no 'direct' control over is in said MonoTouch/Titanium/Unity applications.I knows its a far reach but who knows what shortcuts those companies make in their compilers?
sschaem wrote:You dont use flash, ok cool. But developers do want to leverage a cross platform API.
ekul wrote:The final quality of applications has little to do with the toolkit used to produce it.
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?
lordT wrote:Far reach is the right word. MonoTouch is open source and free. You're free to sift through the code to catch these shortcuts you're talking about.
Either way, you fail to see my point and I don't think I'm going to get your Apple is always right. Obey or GTFO mentality.
Cheers on a non ad-hominem, civilized conversation, tanker.
Nitrodist wrote:I really don't understand how non-programmer Apple fanboys can even enter the conversation when they A. have no idea what they're talking about and B. their livelihoods aren't affected at all by this, unlike many people who develop for the iPhone.
lordT wrote:Crippling developers by completely disabling platforms which let the devs shorten development cycles is good for everyone?
lordT wrote:No point in completely abandoning the platform just because the people behind it are putting up obstacles for the developers.
lordT wrote:They're just making counter-intuitive petty rules to hurt their developers.
grantmeaname wrote:ekul wrote:The final quality of applications has little to do with the toolkit used to produce it.
If two toolkits are required for two parallel applications on different platforms, there's less time for debugging and for features. What is so complicated about that? You seem to struggle with grasping it...
Skrying wrote:John Gruber's statement says as much as I did. It makes a ton of sense for Apple. But it makes NO SENSE AT ALL for you to support the change. It hurts YOU.
This is the base issue. Consumer looks after the consumer, consumer complains when the consumer is being hurt, consumer benefits from the complaining. Company does everything it can to get more money from the consumer. You're failing the consumer part of this equation you stated earlier, which I actually stated before you did, that is called capitalism. Stop hurting yourself.