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

Neal Campbell nealk3nc at gmail.com
Tue May 4 11:21:18 EDT 2010


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 cases at dxbase.fogbugz.com
Abroham Neal forums: http:/www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/community/





On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Richard Gaskin
<ambassador at fourthworld.com>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
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>



More information about the use-livecode mailing list