Microsoft in comparison looks like a beautiful tour de force of openness. Free (arguably) open CIL, languages, document format, IDE, documentation. No one DECIDES who can develop on windows mobile. Or for that matter most other SDKs. As for the cost, absolute worst case for an individual - about $1k a year to get an MSDN subscription.
Meanwhile 4000 devs are going to make ALL the applications that the masses could ever want on an iPhone. Why not just open it up for $100/$300? Heck, why isn't it free to push open source projects? Why isn't it free to push to your own iPhone? Why hasn't anyone asked Apple these questions? This is insane. If Microsoft tried something this crazy everyone would be in an uproar. This will give a huge advantage to large or "in the know" tech companies. I don't see the advantage to the consumer. The iPhone SDK is already relatively locked down so I don't want to hear security.
This being said I have an iPhone and Macbook. They are beautiful elegant machines. They work great. The interface is excellent. FreeBSD is $$$$. They've replaced my linux boxes at home. My iPhone completely pwns my old samsung blackjack. I actually use the internet on my iPhone and I enjoy using it.
I am frustrated that I can't push my iPhone apps from my macbook to my actual iPhone. I'm frustrated that I can't get some of my linux apps to work in OS X. It seems like they have it out for open source / small business / hackers. I could jail break my iPhone, but I shouldn't have to. I could install Xen and Linux, but I shouldn't have to. Sadly, I would be happy if Apple gave us the same choices as Microsoft. That should not be too much to ask.
EDITED: Syntax and a sentence or two.
which might have something to do with why it's an ugly, unpleasant mess.
great technical products are not produced via democracy. they're almost always the vision of just a few people.
Meanwhile 4000 devs are going to make ALL the applications that the masses could ever want on an iPhone.
that's patently absurd. apple randomly picked 4000 iphone devs to let into the beta program. that's all. they will let in more later, once they've gotten feedback from the first crop, and understand better how the process will work.
I'm frustrated that I can't get some of my linux apps to work in OS X.
the linux community is not exactly known for making user-friendly apps. it's only natural that there would be a disconnect between their apps and macosx.
heck, i could spend all day addressing the misconceptions and downright falsehoods in this comment, but it sounds like you've already made up your mind.
Platforms, yes -- consistency goes a long way there, and a few coherent voices can build something where all the pieces work well together.
Applications? 'the talented few' still need access to the platform. The question is, is there a way for a few, talented people to develop and deploy the killer iPhone app?
That's not a rhetorical question -- is there such a route?
it's a shame that apple is not giving out many of the developer keys yet. but if you're serious about this, that shouldn't be much of an impediment. you can still develop for the iphone simulator. and if you really, really need to see your app on a real iphone, you can jailbreak your phone. it's not what apple wants you to do, of course, but i really doubt they're going to disqualify developers who use that method for testing.
I'll listen if you'd like to continue to comment.
great technical products are not produced via democracy. they're almost always the vision of just a few people.
This clearly puts you in the cathedral category from The Cathedral & the Bazaar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar). I think both approaches have their merits and operating systems should make room for both. Though, there are good arguments for both sides I tend to like enough openness for both approaches to compete.
that's patently absurd. apple randomly picked 4000 iphone devs to let into the beta program. that's all. they will let in more later, once they've gotten feedback from the first crop, and understand better how the process will work.
I could understand this for a few months following the launch of the beta. But at this point open it up, what are they worried about? I'd just like to be able to put my own apps on my own iPhone for starters. I don't see how that will hurt Apple's app store launch. I understand why they are doing it, I just don't agree.
I'm happy Apple is at least based on FreeBSD. If Apple is going to use Unix as a selling point then they open themselves up to some expectations from the Linux / BSD crowd. I've found ways around any problems, new apps, different work processes. But, that doesn't mean I wasn't frustrated.
my guess is that it's because this is somewhat tricky. the natural state of data is that it's easily copied. apple is creating artificial impediments to that natural state, in order to keep the iphone experience pristine and friendly for non-techy-types. they don't want to release something that's half-baked, then have to take it back. that would get everyone enraged.
also, apple does have an unfortunate tendency towards absolute secrecy. it's better than the endless vaporware announcements that most other companies seem to revel in, but i think they go too far sometimes.
apple's not perfect, but they do a better job than any other tech company i can think of, in my opinion.
Actually, Visual Studio Express doesn't even include a profiler, IIRC. The profiler is included only in the much more expensive enterprisey Visual Studio team edition (or whatever the hell it's called). All of Apple's developer tools are completely free and come with OS installation DVDs. Apple's compilers are based on gcc, and, per terms of the GPL, Apple's patches are sent back to gcc's maintainers.
"Meanwhile 4000 devs are going to make ALL the applications that the masses could ever want on an iPhone."
Where did you get this idea? 4000 people are in the beta, and there is no reason to believe that Apple won't let absolutely anyone on Earth develop iPhone apps as soon as the SDK reaches its final release.
"Heck, why isn't it free to push open source projects?... It seems like they have it out for open source / small business / hackers."
The iPhone App Store is free of charge to developers who choose to release free software, so I have no idea what you're complaining about. The store also lets independent developers set their own pricing. If you don't like that you can't just zap apps from iPhone to iPhone, (1) that's mainly done for safety reasons, and (2) you actually can, with the ad hoc signing mechanism discussed in WWDC keynote.
The iPhone App Store is free of charge to developers who choose to release free software, so I have no idea what you're complaining about. The store also lets independent developers set their own pricing. If you don't like that you can't just zap apps from iPhone to iPhone, (1) that's mainly done for safety reasons, and (2) you actually can, with the ad hoc signing mechanism discussed in WWDC keynote.
Like I said, I enjoy Apple products. I have a problem with the way they run their business. Just because the iPhone will someday be supportive to open source and sharing doesn't mean that it is now. When they finally do allow new small-time iPhone developers I will be celebrating with everyone else.
It's more an issue of building closed platforms. Everyone knows they are bad news but it seems like Apple gets a free pass. Adapting is always a good move, but you have to go meta at some point. A rough parallel would be people living in a locked down communist country... sure you adapt, but on some level it's proper to object to any system that long term consolidates power and subjugates minority interests.
Apple doesn't lie to developers about their systems. They present a "my way or the highway" offer. And many excellent devs take them up on it, because they think that the OS X is worth the limitations developers face. Some users think that overall, that is a trade-off that is completely worth it. Others absolutely disagree. But Mac users don't hate "freetards" for their choices. The hate tends to be one-way. Ironic, because a lot of the condescension that Mac users get is from people who accuse them of being elitist.
And... that's my one-sided, rambling rant.
On the one hand, the OP reminds me of the people who were complaining about Microsoft killing firewall vendors by including basic security features in the OS -- you should expect to be destroyed if your entire business model is dependent on the elephant sleeping peacefully on one side of the cage.
On the other hand, Apple isn't creating an ecosystem with the iPhone, so much as a different type of cage. If you play by their rules, you're extremely susceptible to being squished when the elephant gets restless.
Exactly. Many people here may be too young to recall the late 80ies, but Apple were the ones who wanted to control the operating system and the hardware, whereas Microsoft settled for "just" the OS and open hardware. Remember the Apple "look and feel" lawsuit?
They make great products, but as a developer, I'm not sure I trust them a whole lot more than Microsoft.
A remnant of that issue may be present on your desktop. I believe this works on Windows XP and it should also work on Windows Vista. Select a window. Press Alt and release. Press Space and release. The menu that is revealed is to sidestep Apple's single click window closing patent which was filed circa 1984.
But i don't see how this behaviour is related to a single click patent. Btw. it doesn't work with Firefox.
After the patent expired, the keyboard sequences were retained for power users who were already familiar with the sequences. However, the prominance of the menu has declined.
> it doesn't work on Firefox
I'm not surprised. Firefox on Windows implements its own menu primitives. Many other applications have different versions of the same libraries statically compiled. Obviously, the Firefox implementation doesn't implement a legacy window.
The original complaint about Apple being anti-open is proof that there's still room for more than Apple.
Nothing to be "depressed" about. Happens all the time.
"Happens all the time" is a reason not to be depressed? I think "landscape changes" take place because someone/some group got tired of being depressed and actively sought some sort of change.
OTOH, this is an excellent example of the advantages of being small and nimble - you can adapt quickly while the big boys are stuck struggling.
What? The big boys are eating Apple pie because they, I assume, had an easier time getting to the table than the small and nimble.
Why? Because the landscape has changed?
People affected by this will just have to adapt and find their place in the new landscape. That's all.
The pie is so big there's room for everybody. And if you still don't think so, there are plenty of other pies no one has noticed yet. You just gotta find them.
Nothing to be "depressed" about. Happens all the time.
OTOH, this is an excellent example of the advantages of being small and nimble - you can adapt quickly while the big boys are stuck struggling.