Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apple Rolls Out WebKit2, But No Linux Love Yet

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    And how many homebrew apps are running on a Xbox? Same limitations buddy if not more restrictive.
    But at least they were up front about it. The difference is that Apple waited until after Adobe spent millions to get their product running on the iPhone, and only then took away the rug right at the last moment. The issue is the capriciousness and the lack of hard rules. The fact that you might be selling something on the iPhone right now, only to suddenly have it taken away because some app reviewer changes their mind. With MS, you always know where you stand.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
      But at least they were up front about it. The difference is that Apple waited until after Adobe spent millions to get their product running on the iPhone, and only then took away the rug right at the last moment. The issue is the capriciousness and the lack of hard rules. The fact that you might be selling something on the iPhone right now, only to suddenly have it taken away because some app reviewer changes their mind. With MS, you always know where you stand.
      With reguards to adobe, they knew the score well before hand and adobe tried to sneak around and find a loophole.

      Comment


      • #33
        I might also add that when you grab the SDK for the iPhone you agree to the terms laid out in the EULA which stipulates that Apple has final say and the developer agrees to those terms so they are very up front about that.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          With reguards to adobe, they knew the score well before hand and adobe tried to sneak around and find a loophole.
          Adobe is only one example. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of apps developed for the iPhone that were declared persona non-grata. Apps that apple has arbitrarily decided "duplicate functionality" even though users would disagree. Unity3D games that apple initially approved and is only now taking away. The list goes on. The issue is that if you develop an iphone app right now, you basically have to just hope and pray that your investment doesn't go up in smoke. Then hope that even after initial approval, Apple doesn't later take it away. That's not friendly at all.

          I find it very difficult to feel any sympathy towards Adobe, they're a real bastard of a company in my book. But Apple has actually managed to do it for me.

          Anyway, i'm getting tired of this conversation. So i'll end it, in apparently the only way that will make you happy.

          You're absolutely correct, deanjo, Apple is a perfect company in every way and I have no idea what I was thinking when i dared to make a small criticism of it. I apologize, and will never bring this matter up again. /sarcasm

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            You're absolutely correct, deanjo, Apple is a perfect company in every way and I have no idea what I was thinking when i dared to make a small criticism of it. I apologize, and will never bring this matter up again. /sarcasm
            Never said Apple was perfect, far from it but trying to paint a company one company as Judas without looking around and looking at the surroundings and what is going on elsewhere is a view seen through horse blinders.

            Comment


            • #36
              Pfff Apple. Maybe the only thing I like in the computer culture of my country is the fact that Linux is considered a bigger player than Apple. Hmmm Apple is not considered a player at all...

              Comment


              • #37
                Apple... hmzzzz...

                A company that designs hardware that the rest of the industry follows. In other words they do not care if something costs more money (it's for the elites anyway) as long as it makes it a more usable product.

                Phone companies where still like: It can play MP3's now! And Apple came with touchscreens. Fine... I bought a Samsung phone with a touchscreen and I wouldn't be able to go back (web browsing).

                I like the fact that Apple raises the bar for consumer products so that companies feel like that they have to make better products so they can still compete.

                What else? They are pushing Unix to the masses. I like that too, because they also use open standards. No problem with that.

                Their products focus heavily in minimalistic design, which is what a lot of avarage computer users realy like/need.

                Apple is probably the only company that makes user-friendly computers.

                Will I ever buy it? No chance in hell:
                -Too expensive
                -Too restricted
                -Less functionality
                -Security hell (Apple uses a lot of FLOSS projects code and Mac OS X isn't updated daily on average, which means hackers only need to see what holes are patched in the corresponding FLOSS and exploit it on Mac users, so this is hell when more people start using Apple products)

                And Linux pwns the shit out of Apple IMHO.

                My $0,04

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                  I would also like to point out that patents do not stifle innovation. They stifle duplication.
                  Really? Well for instance touchscreens, including experiments with multitouch have been around for almost as long as the mouse. Any gestures you can make on a (multi-)touch screen as well. Yet Apple has patented multitouch and gestures like pinching, which is completely trivial.

                  So they are in effect stifling innovation. And in fact they do this by duplicating things that already existed long before. Even if the Apple engineers re-invented some of those things independently, they should never have gotten a patent for it.

                  Patent only ever were somewhat useful when used by single inventors or small shops long ago. Back when the automobile and the telegraph were invented. Nowadays the stream of new ideas is so much larger, there are so much more engineers, and there is so much big money behind it that patent do not help innovation, but they hinder it.

                  They should be abolished altogether, if only to get rid of patent trolls (company who only buy patents for litigation but make no products themselves).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    So I guess openCL, Grand central, cups, LLVM don't exist then in your limited vision.
                    I never said they are not an open source citizen of some sort. They do contribute some things to the common good. But not much compared to what they take, and negligible compared to what is given to them. Also cups is a bad example. They just bought the CUPS company, and of course it is still GPL. But as a sysadmin I can tell you that not much is improved about CUPS since it changed hands to Apple. I wish someone would fork it to accelerate the development of CUPS. It is sorely needed. Mac clients are not even completely compatible with a Linux CUPS server. They do not support CUPS classes for instance.

                    But ok, OpenCL is a good contribution, I don't know much about grand central (it is some kind of queuing scheduler for many small threads) or LLVM (some kind of compiler useful for GPU's).

                    Apple is not the only 'bad apple' among software or hardware companies, or other big companies in the world. It is all cut-throat competition. I know that. I just don't like what Apple does and they are getting way too powerful.

                    The open source community still does not fully understand the danger coming from Apple, still happily port all Linux's best software to OS X. That undermines the market for free operating systems.

                    On the other hand, Linux needs to get graphics (X, video, 3D), audio, and api infrastructure in order yesterday. There are far too many problems with it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by perpetualrabbit View Post
                      Really? Well for instance touchscreens, including experiments with multitouch have been around for almost as long as the mouse. Any gestures you can make on a (multi-)touch screen as well. Yet Apple has patented multitouch and gestures like pinching, which is completely trivial.

                      So they are in effect stifling innovation. And in fact they do this by duplicating things that already existed long before. Even if the Apple engineers re-invented some of those things independently, they should never have gotten a patent for it.

                      Patent only ever were somewhat useful when used by single inventors or small shops long ago. Back when the automobile and the telegraph were invented. Nowadays the stream of new ideas is so much larger, there are so much more engineers, and there is so much big money behind it that patent do not help innovation, but they hinder it.

                      They should be abolished altogether, if only to get rid of patent trolls (company who only buy patents for litigation but make no products themselves).
                      Every example you give is duplication. None of it is innovation. I'm not defending patents at all but saying they stifle innovation is an oxymoron. Copying features and functions is not innovating, it's duplicating.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                        Every example you give is duplication. None of it is innovation. I'm not defending patents at all but saying they stifle innovation is an oxymoron. Copying features and functions is not innovating, it's duplicating.
                        What about when a patent is part of a standard, and you are required to duplicate functionality in order to meet the standard? H264 comes to mind. x264 wasn't "cut 'n pasted" from somewhere else, but because if provides patented functionality it can't be freely distributed.

                        This is the major problem with patents IMHO. If x264 can't be freely distributed then something is being stifled. Isn't "creating efficient code to meet a standard" innovation?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                          Every example you give is duplication. None of it is innovation. I'm not defending patents at all but saying they stifle innovation is an oxymoron. Copying features and functions is not innovating, it's duplicating.
                          There were only so many ways to create a fire for the pre-historic humans. What if for every fire you made, or pottery you baked or iron they wrought our ancestors needed permission or pay taxes to some other group of people? Civilization would never have gotten of the ground.

                          What about independently re-inventing the same thing, why should one have to pay royalties? You shouldn't, is the right answer.

                          Ideas freely come to people and should be given away freely to all mankind. There is no such thing as stealing an idea. Duplication is good. Amelioration (improving upon) is better. The old greek idea of progress was something like imitation, emulation, amelioration.

                          Patents are like putting fences around little pieces of land and forcing everyone who has to pass over it to reach the next place to pay up. Pretty soon, it is no longer economical to move anywhere, unless you are one of the big landlords, who make cross-agreements. The little people were unfree. That is feudalism, and it was a time of slavery. Only people living near coastlines or in big cities had some measure of freedom.

                          Patent only hinder people to get to the next idea, if you pay them any heed. Patents are modern feudalism in the space of ideas. Apple, IBM, Sony, Microsoft and others are the feudal lords in idea-space.

                          I think patents are unethical and immoral. Software, genetic and pharmaceutical patents are the worst of all.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                            Pfff Apple. Maybe the only thing I like in the computer culture of my country is the fact that Linux is considered a bigger player than Apple. Hmmm Apple is not considered a player at all...
                            Ever been near a university lately? Apple is gaining marketshare at an alarming rate. Based on my experience at the NTUA, Macbooks are way past the 10% mark right now.

                            I've yet to see anyone using Linux at the library, either (apart from myself). No wonder, I guess, considering the main PC lab is running on vanilla Debian/Gnome - which is a sure-fire way to turn people off from Linux forever.

                            But we are getting off topic. Truth is, WebKit2 will gain Linux support sooner or later but you can bet that Apple won't be the one doing that. In fact, they'd like nothing better than see Linux die: it's their main (only) competitor in the "smartphone" segment and it is eroding their attempts at a walled, DRM-protected ad/music/video/ebook/app ecosystem.

                            Unfortunately, Apple seems to be gaining ground right now...

                            Originally posted by smitty3268
                            I find it very difficult to feel any sympathy towards Adobe, they're a real bastard of a company in my book. But Apple has actually managed to do it for me.
                            My feelings exactly! Much as I hate Adobe, Apple has scraped the bottom of the barrel with their new developer license. Banning high-level languages from the iPhone? This is like marketing dictating which programming language to use for your next major application, only worse (if you know what I mean).

                            There's a very special place in hell reserved for those people.

                            Q: How can you tell a native obj-c iPhone application from one written in C#/MonoTouch?
                            A: The C# one doesn't leak memory.

                            Great job, Apple, great job for alienating a significant part of your developer base. You are obviously thinking you have achieved critical mass to achieve lock-in to your inferior tools. Did you ever consider that those very developers might simply move on to Android and WinMo7?

                            One of them just did.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                              Every example you give is duplication. None of it is innovation. I'm not defending patents at all but saying they stifle innovation is an oxymoron. Copying features and functions is not innovating, it's duplicating.
                              I'm sorry I went a bit on a history rant there. To stay on-topic: the duplication was done by Apple. There is hardly any innovation by them. They often do make a better implementation of (long-)existing ideas: amelioration. But then they patent them, and that means they say they were first. They were not. They use their patents in order to try and stop HTC/Android/Google. If they are succesful (no chance, I think, but who knows what will happen), android will suffer: hindering progress.

                              Linux already suffers because Apple's enforcing of some trivial font-related patents means that fonts under linux look less good than they could look. The code for font-hinting and other things is there, but often not compiled in out of fear for Apple. Tell me how that is not hindering innovation in Linux.

                              Conversely, the development and deployment of linux in the server market has shaken out most of the old UNIX dinosaurs (HP, SUN, SGI) or forced them to be more agile and cheaper: open solaris, solaris on x86 hardware, opening up of sparc platform. Microsoft is forced to innovate in order to compete with linux. If patents can be used to make linux houses pay royalties, this means Microsoft will have to innovate less to compete.

                              Patent do stifle innovation. Imitation is good. Amelioration is better.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by perpetualrabbit View Post
                                Ideas freely come to people...
                                Ah, there's your problem: that's not true at all. Big ideas come from weeks or months of concerted thinking effort, often by large groups of people. During these weeks and months, these thinking people occasionally need to eat. After all, if they can't eat, they'll probably decide to stop thinking, go out and find some lunch.

                                It logically follows that someone needs to pay them money to do this thinking, or they starve to death, get cold, get wet, or otherwise have a pretty hard time. And for someone to ba able to pay them money, that someone has to make money from the stuff they're thinking about. Is this train of thought making sense?

                                Surely, the world in which no ideas of any complexity are ever had is the world in which patents don't exist.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X