SuperSite Blog

Its a good start.  Is this from the MBU?

Yawn!

Great. They release an app for the iPhone but forget to FIX WINDOWS MOBILE.

Yeh, Yeh. We see the LOGIC.

Oh, wait it is Microsoft. Nothing Unusual.

This app is really awesome and performs amazingly well on the iphone.  Good work Live team.

Shame Apple blocked Silverlight on iPhone or this wouldn't be necessary.

Yawn

It's from Live Labs (the experimental projects group at Live)

Thanks Mike.   Nice to see Microsoft writing software for the iPhone.   Could be the win - win Jobs has been talking about.  

Yawn!

Yawn!

A win-win would be Jobs letting Silverlight on the iPhone so you wouldn't need iPhone specific apps that are done on the other platforms by using the Silverlight runtime but that's pretty unlikely.

@mikegalos: Silverlight is second rate. MS even uses Flash in places where they could tout their much loved Silverlight. How much belief can one have in one's own product when one doesn't use it?

Amazing, this is such a big story. Google News has 271 stories aggregated. The iEchoChamber is a serious thing.

@mikegalos:

"A win-win would be Jobs letting Silverlight on the iPhone so you wouldn't need iPhone specific apps that are done on the other platforms by using the Silverlight runtime but that's pretty unlikely."

That would only further open the flood gates and let in even more Windows developers that have no taste, developing dodgy apps for the iPhone. You can see plenty of old VB and Windows developers polluting the AppStore already.

>>Shame Apple blocked Silverlight on iPhone or this wouldn't be necessary.<<

---Alex Daley, group product manager for Microsoft Live Labs, said...The iPhone is the most widely distributed phone with a (graphics processing unit)," Daley explained. "Most phones out today don’t have accelerated graphics in them  The iPhone does and so it enabled us to do something that has been previously difficult to do. I couldn’t just pick up a Blackberry or a Nokia off the shelf and build Seadragon for it without GPU support."---

Oh and...

--There are signs that more Microsoft groups may also be interested in iPhone app development, with David Geller of Eyejot commenting yesterday on TechFlash about the "large number" of Microsofties attending a recent Seattle-area iPhone developers group meeting.--

www.techflash.com/.../Microsofts_first_iPhone_app_Live_Labs_releases_Seadragon_Mobile36113259.html

This gets even more interesting:

>>The Seadragon team recently released a Seadragon Ajax version, for viewing Deep Zoom photos using standard Web technologies. Earlier the group had released Deep Zoom technology for Microsoft's Silverlight interactive technology.<<

SIlverlight for the loss.  :)

The example on the page here is pretty hot:

http://livelabs.com/seadragon/

Be it a very odd choice for the cherry-popping iPhone app, this d*mn thing is just really cool...  completely useless... but very very cool.  When on wifi, this thing blows Google Earth mobile out of the water.

For me, it's just another one of those "WTF Microsoft?" moments.  Awesome software--odd implementation.

"Shame Apple blocked Silverlight on iPhone or this wouldn't be necessary."

Like the sun will come up tomorrow, Mike will bash Apple and praise MS, once again contributing nothing but pure bias.  If Microsoft turned on IMAP tomorrow for Live Mail and had a native iPhone version of it, somehow it would be bad because of Apple and good because of MS.

Mike you really have NO IDEA how predictably lame you come off do you???

You need your own blog so you can here the crickets chirp.

Who cares about silverlight ?

Funny that webpage from MS lab has the same ton of Pingback as this blog...

Hahaha Silverlight...

No thanks! My iPhone is a much nicer place without Flash and Silverlight. And when companies (including Microsoft) are so willing to build iPhone-specific apps, it can hopefully stay that way.

robersjoe, I thought you left?

Is it just me who thinks a product called Seadragon is more likely to made by Mozilla?

You know, I mostly agree with Mike on this one (Yah, scary.)

There's no reason not to allow Flash and Silverlight on the iPhone.

I'd love to have netflix streaming for my iPhone, but ain't gonna happen without  Silverlight.

This extreme anal retentiveness over what can be put on a iPhone is just way over the top. In this instance, Steve Jobs control mania is just too much.

Users are perfectly capable of deciding what they like and don't like on their phone and proceeding as they see fit.

"This extreme anal retentiveness over what can be put on a iPhone is just way over the top. In this instance, Steve Jobs control mania is just too much."

It will only be over the top when developers stop producing apps in mass, or consumers stop spending/downloading/using the app store.

Its not perfect by any measure but in the end the #'s say its working, better than anything else.

"You know, I mostly agree with Mike on this one (Yah, scary.)"

Nope. Scary is when you agree with robertsjoe. Compare mike's remarks from yesterday with robertjsoe's and you'll see. I mean, robertsjoe makes lindy appear saintly. No mean feat, that. ;-)

Lindy

So, you'd be in favor of Jobs taking the same approach with Snow Leopard, right?

You can only buy software for the Mac direct from Apple. Only software approved by Apple could be used on a Mac. Apple has the right to deny any developer the ability to sell software for the Mac if it competes with anything Apple makes or might choose to make in the future. Apple has the right to kernel panic your machine if you install any software they didn't approve or if you tried to disable Apple's locking code.

After all, Macintosh has only 3.5% of the market now, by your reasoning if they locked it down like their consumer electronics, maybe their computers would be successful.

All the reasons for locking the iPhone make just as much (or little) sense on Macintosh.

Hmmm. Apple did make that statement about a future plan that would cost them money in the short run...

@Mike Galos,

Apple "should" support Silverlight on the iPhone based on the same logic that requires that Microsoft "should" have fully supported Open GL or MPEG 4.  I think you would/do defend Microsoft's right to pursue their own strategy for platform technologies and I think it's only fair to allow Apple the same courtesy intellectually.

I'm not saying Microsoft should be forced to do things against their own interest.  In fact, my increasingly strident libertarian studies has lead me to conclude that the anti-trust suit against Microsoft was total garbage and purely the result of the company's lack of Washington lobbying prior to the assault.

So, we'll see if Apple's strategy succeeds or fails, but I see no reason right now for Apple to be more open on the runtime front given how much control they'd instantly lose by doing so.

It IS in their interest to put all developer interest into the SDK and build it out as a robust platform.  If demand for Flash or Silverlight becomes enough of an issue, I'm sure Apple will open up support for them.  The company is not nearly as ideological as anyone claims.  That's a big narrative fantasy that simpletons in the media love to play up because it makes writing about the company seem more mysterious.

Posted by nutts:

[quote]

Hahaha Silverlight...

No thanks! My iPhone is a much nicer place without Flash and Silverlight. And when companies (including Microsoft) are so willing to build iPhone-specific apps, it can hopefully stay that way.

[/quote]

This is the kind of asinine thinking from rabid iSuckups that truly boggles the mind.

The iPhone is a much nicer place because of the lack of Flash or Silverlight.. that is, until The Dear Leader deigns us worthy of having Flash on the iPhone. And then, the iPhone would be a much nicerer place BECAUSE it can run Flash.

And now Mozilla is saying they had to reverse engineer Apple's secret APIs in OS X to get Firefox 3.1 to support multitouch gestures since Apple doesn't publish the multitouch APIs for 3rd party developers and only allows them to be used in Apple developed applications.

johnpapola

Where does Microsoft block 3rd party developers from producing tools you think are "fully supported"? That would be the equivalent to what I said.

Saying Apple has to produce their own Silverlight and Flash compatible APIs even when 3rd parties are free to do so is the equivalent of what you said.

Do you see the difference?

"The iPhone is a much nicer place because of the lack of Flash or Silverlight.. that is, until The Dear Leader deigns us worthy of having Flash on the iPhone."

Like he did with expansion slots or color or choices of monitors or more than one model or different amounts of memory. (All of which were things Jobs insisted had no place in Macintosh until they did)

OpenGL not supported in Windows? huh? care to clarify?

"(All of which were things Jobs insisted had no place in Macintosh until they did)"

Isn't that the role of the CEO of a company? And isn't it the company's right to make such choices? You, I, and others may not agree with it...but it is totally OK for Apple or any other company to make those kinds of decisions about the products and services that they sell/provide. If enough people disagree with that strategy, it will show in sales figures...as it has with the Macintosh computer...but not the iPod/iPhone.

--tayme

Here is an example of thinking different:

>>the clincher is the Zune Pass music subscription service, which lets people pay a flat monthly fee for blanket access rather than buying individual tracks. It's the Zune's biggest point of competitive differentiation against the iPod. Apple doesn't offer subscriptions.

So why not offer a limited Zune Pass as an app for the iPhone and iPod touch? It would be like advertising for the Zune -- giving iPhone and iPod users a taste of what the Zune is about. Then, for the full experience, they would need to switch to a Zune device. It's a modern twist on Microsoft's classic strategy of "embracing" and "extending" rival technologies.<<

Todd Bishop

tayme

"Isn't that the role of the CEO of a company? "

No. Not really. It's within the power of the CEO to lie about future plans or to attack competitors for doing features you plan on doing yourself but that's hardly the role of the CEO.

You see, there are lots of honest CEOs out there who try to actually help their customers and partners plan for a long-term future with their products. They may not telegraph every future plan but they don't intentionally decieve their customers and partners.

On the other hand, in Steve Jobs' case, it's more likely that he really believes these technologies are bad and prohibited until he decides he likes them at which point they're mandatory.

As I said, it would be very Jobsian to see a future for Macintosh where: You can only buy software for the Mac direct from Apple. Only software approved by Apple could be used on a Mac. Apple has the right to deny any developer the ability to sell software for the Mac if it competes with anything Apple makes or might choose to make in the future. Apple has the right to kernel panic your machine if you install any software they didn't approve or if you tried to disable Apple's locking code.

After all, the relatively open Macintosh is stagnant compared with the relatively closed iPhone. Apple is using "Secret APIs" to take advantage of features on Macintosh that they don't give out as part of their SDK. It's not as though Jobs has ever had a fondness for openness. I can certainly see a locked Mac happening. (And people here condemning the idea until it happens then cheering it once it does)

It's ridiculous to compare the philosophy on software between a general purpose computer (the iMac) to a "less general" computing device (iPhone) whether you are right or wrong, or agreed with / disagreed with....there is so much different between the two that attempting to act as if they are the same is just plain idiocy.

Mike Galos, you speak of "Secret APIs" as if this isn't something MS does on a regular basis...or did you forget the anti-trust case they lost where they were then forced to publish many of the "Secret APIs" they were using that no one was able to use without serious reverse engineering efforts?

While Mike bellyaches, developers are getting rich on the iPhone platform:

>>Whichever platform draws the most developers will likely rule the market. Right now "it's a 100-yard dash and Apple is already 75 yards down the track while the other guys are still trying to get out of the blocks," says Ken Dulaney, analyst at researcher Gartner in San Jose.

--

"It's crazy. It's like lottery money..."<<

www.newsweek.com/.../print

Panache

As I said, "All the reasons for locking the iPhone make just as much (or little) sense on Macintosh." Saying it's ridiculous isn't exactly giving a reason, now is it.

As for Secret APIs, do your homework. There was no issue of Secret APIs in the DOJ trial and the earlier "Secret APIs" investigation in the 1980s showed that Microsoft didn't do that. But thanks for playing.

In any case, though, there's no question that Apple is doing it now. So, do you approve (when Apple does it) or condemn the practice (as your false accusations of Microsoft would imply)?

@ Ocean:

"While Mike bellyaches, developers are getting rich on the iPhone platform:"

While developers are also getting rich on Windows platform, why the false bellyaches and outrages about monopolistic practices of MSFT? Why doesn't all the money being made on the Microsoft platform(s) excuse any alleged wrongdoings on Microsoft's part?

Hypocrite!!

AAAH, Mike...the power of denial is strong, isn't it?

www.directionsonmicrosoft.com/.../1202asawfm.htm

Here's an excerpt "The settlement, which was first signed in Nov. 2001 and modified slightly in Feb. 2002, forces Microsoft to create and publish a uniform price list for Windows for the top 20 OEMs; gives OEMs more flexibility in the software they preinstall on PCs; gives OEMs and consumers more control over the icons on their desktop that link to "middleware" (e.g., Web browsers, media players); prevents Microsoft from granting special consideration to certain partners in exchange for promoting Microsoft middleware; and <b>forces the company to reveal previously hidden APIs and information about how Windows desktops communicate with Windows servers.</b> (For a detailed review of the settlement and its effect, see "Effects of the Antitrust Settlement" on page 13 of the Jan. 2002 Update.) <b>Microsoft has already begun complying with this settlement by including a special dialog box with Windows XP Service Pack 1 that makes it easier for OEMs and users to hide and unhide desktop icons (see "DoJ Compliance Shapes First XP Service Pack" on page 8 of the Aug. 2002 Update) and by revealing required APIs and communication protocols</b> (see "Protocols, APIs to Be Revealed" on page 32 of the Sept. 2002 Update.)"

Amazing how they were "already complying" with something you said they weren't doing, right?  As you said, "Thanks for playing".

And no, I don't approve when Apple does it and condemns it when MS DOES it (not a false accusation, by the way)...I don't like when either of them do it.  But don't act like Apple does / is and MS doesn't / isn't.

And once again....Thanks for playing!

panache

Those weren't "Secret APIs".

Secret APIs are a part of the OS that lets the platform vendor's apps run better than 3rd partys' apps.

What this talks about is how two proprietary apps talk to each other and not how the operating system works.

It's not the "OS Maker Advantage" that Apple is doing right now and that Microsoft was accused of  (and found innocent of)

Now, where's that condemnation from you (as loud as your condemnation was of Microsoft when you incorrectly thought they were doing it) about what Apple ACTUALLY IS DOING right now?

Hey Mike...

What part of this is a condemnation of Microsoft?

"Mike Galos, you speak of "Secret APIs" as if this isn't something MS does on a regular basis...or did you forget the anti-trust case they lost where they were then forced to publish many of the "Secret APIs" they were using that no one was able to use without serious reverse engineering efforts?"

Oh Mike, you are truly so wrong...

msdn.microsoft.com/.../ms807073.aspx

Here is another excerpt from the link I just provided.

"Microsoft teams identified a few hundred undocumented Windows interfaces or parameters that were used by one or more of the Microsoft Middleware components. Microsoft's technical writers have documented these interfaces and made them available as APIs in the MSDN Online Library."

they identified a few hundred UNDOCUMENTED interfaces or parameters...

Oh Mike, here is what those UNDOCUMENTED items were for.

"As part of that settlement, Microsoft agreed to document the interfaces used by "Microsoft Middleware" (as defined in the proposed consent decree) to obtain services from the Microsoft® Windows® 2000 and Windows XP desktop client operating systems."

They were used to get services from the OS...

Ok, go ahead, spin away Mike.  Let's see how you try to get out of being wrong again.

Panache

Apple is currently using Secret APIs in their operating system that gives their applications an advantage over all of their competitors. They produce one SDK for their competitors (and supposed partners) and another one with extra "good stuff" in it just for their own apps.

Now. Where's that condemnation you spoke of?

Once again Mike, you are making things up.

I never said I have condemnation towards a company has hidden APIs.  I said I don't like it that MS or Apple does it.

I have not condemned MS for doing it...stop saying I have.

panache

I realize you're not a developer so I can understand that you're confused.

The difference between a "Secret API" and not publishing every internal interface is this:

In a "Secret API" case, you give your own application developers access to a superset of what you give to your competitors. That's what Apple is doing now and is wildly anti-competitive.

What Microsoft did was not publish specific internal calls for any application developers - internal or external. There are always tons of internal APIs that are not released into an SDK. That's not seen as an issue and is true of any platform that's ever been produced.

Now, where's that condemnation from you (as loud as your condemnation was of Microsoft when you incorrectly thought they were doing it) about what Apple ACTUALLY IS DOING right now?

Mike,

1)  First, I am a developer as a profession.

2)  Your ticky tack definition of what  "Secret API" case is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.  You are saying Microsoft was forced to document APIs that even THEY were NOT using?  LOL.

3)  I have NOT YET CONDEMNED ANYONE FOR DOING IT.  Show me where I have and I'll condemn the other guy just as loudly.

The more you go on about this, the clearer it is that you have pro-MS delusions.  It's actually quite funny that you think I condemned MS for doing anything.

The difference is simple. Prior to the case, there were parts of the operating system like the Transaction Processing Monitor (TPM) that Microsoft considered features of the operating system and made using them part of the public API.

The court ruled that things like the TPM should be a seperate category called "middleware" that was neither part of the OS (which it had been) nor an application.

Because it was no longer part of the OS, the calls the TPM made to the OS which had been internal OS calls (which are NOT part of any application SDK - internal or external) were changed to being SDK level calls. When that happened they were published for internal and external use.

Microsoft did NOT produce separate application APIs for internal and external use. Period.

What Apple is doing is totally different. They are publishing key application level calls in an internal-only SDK that is being used to give Apple Applications an advantage over 3rd party competitors.

And that is wildly anti-competitive. Period.

(And the argument that the APIs in question are internal OS calls makes no sense since their basic I/O application level function and no more internal than access to the keyboard or mouse)

@Mike,

I agree with the distinction you've made.  Apple's is clearly controlling what can get onto the iPhone where Microsoft never controlled what could be installed on Windows.  Point well taken.

I think the crucial difference is the nature of the iPhone as a phone/appliance and the user expectations and network-related security issues that come with that.

It's clear that the iPhone is not as robust of a platform as Windows or Mac OSX, both of which are totally open to extension.  But I think the trade-off in flexibility for stability and support probably continues to make sense right now.  Plus, I think that the strategy Apple is pursuing is to leverage the device's popularity to open up the ecosystem of developers in Cocoa Touch.  That's a smart play.

As for Open GL... clearly, it's benefitted Microsoft to develop and default DirectX.  That was a smart strategic move that locked a generation of GPU-centric developers and game publishers into a Microsoft-only API set.  Apple is pursuing the same strategy with Cocoa Touch, only they have the power to deny the alternative API's from even getting installed on the platform.  

Again, It's not open.  But it's probably smart, and it doesn't seem to be slowing interest in the platform.  My guess is it's forcing developers like the Live Labs group to learn it, and thus proving the strategy to be successful.

I see a LOT of function calls on that link I provded that are SHELL function calls.  Care to try to explain those away Mike?

LOL!  Too funny.

Panache

I'm glad you're amused by Apple using their OS producer advantage to harm competitors.

Now your claim is that Microsoft produced an internal-only application level SDK that gave Microsoft Applications an advantage over 3rd pary applications developers. After all, that's what Apple is clearly doing and you don't deny that.

Yet, you haven't ever shown that. And neither did the courts.

Really. Saying "everybody else does it, too" is a rather sad defense. Even moreso when you claim that you condemn the practice. And especially when the claim that "everybody else does it, too" is demonstrably false.

Or to put it simply...

Panache, Care to try to explain away why Apple keeping the multitouch APIs "internal use only" is in any way not wildly anti-competitive?

johnpapola

If personal computers were still in the days of individual, disconnected systems I'd accept the need for tighter restrictions on an "always network connected" device like the iPhone. I'd disagree, but I'd accept the reasoning. However, nowadays personal computers are as much "always network connected" devices as a cell phone so the argument no longer is valid.

If the iMac doesn't need the restrictions, there's nothing about the iPhone that justifies tighter restriction.

"It's ridiculous to compare the philosophy on software between a general purpose computer (the iMac) to a "less general" computing device (iPhone)"

Well, they both use OS X, now don't they?

(....or are you withdrawing from that argument?)

Waethorn

It's reasonable to say that desktop, laptop and mobile computing devices such as smart phones, UMPCs and webtops are all equally "general purpose computers"

aaaah Mikey..trying to change the subject again when you finally realize how wrong you are.

However, I've had enough of this.  You're so wrong that you need to change the subject.

You claim I say things I haven't.  I provide links showing that MS has / is documenting functions due to an anti trust agreement, you deny it.  A LOT of those functions are SHELL FUNCTIONS, yet you claim that didn't give MS an unfair advantage.

Then you go on to claim that I say "everybody else does it too" when all I want is you to stop being such a damn hypocrite, calling out Apple for doing something MS does, and then defending MS's use of it, but not Apple's.

The courts have most definitely stated that MS needs to document it's APIs to third parties so that their software interacts better with Windows...I dont' know how much more clear that can be to anyone who can see even SLIGHTLY without the blinders that you have on....it's pathetic!

Then you say that I have condemned the practice of MS doing but not Apple, which is clearly false...I haven't condemned ANYONE.

You are just truly a sad, sad man

Panache

The subject was, and still is, Apple's anti-competitive use of Secret APIs to give their own Application developers an unfair advantage over their competitors.

I condemn it.

You keep trying to talk about Microsoft instead.

Waethorn.

Please...give me a break!  That's like saying Windows XP and Windows Mobile are the same.

The DEVICES that run OS X Leopard and the devices that run IPhone OS are so completely different.  The ipod touch / iphone is clearly a more limited device from a hardware perspective....

or do you not agree?  Do you think the Pocket PC was as versatile as a PC?

Please, don't be a jackass...you are so capable of well thought out ideas and responses, and then you insinuate that an iMac and iPhone are the same because they both run OS X...

that's like saying the .NET Compact Framework is the same as the full .NET Framework found on PCs.

>>give their own Application developers an unfair advantage over their competitors.<<

Their competitors are not complaining.  Read the Time article.

aaah, ok Mike...if this is what you want, I'll give it to you.

Yes, I condemn *ANY* OS maker from keeping APIs hidden so that their applications can do things that others cannot.....without needing to reverse engineer or jump through other hoops.

Whether it be MS, Apple, or any other entity, I do not feel it is right.

"then you insinuate that an iMac and iPhone are the same because they both run OS X..."

No....what I'm insinuating is that they don't.

waethorn,

Why do you think they don't?  Do you have some sort of proof that they don't?

Are you suggesting that Apple claims that the iPod touch / iphone run the *same* full version of Leopard that is sold on the iMac?

Ocean

Their competitors ARE complaining. Read any of the articles about Firefox and multitouch.

panache

Actually, it was Steve Jobs that said iPhone runs the same OS X operating system. Now, it may have been very carefully worded but that was the claim.

All I can find is quotes saying "Scaled down version of Mac OS X" and "the exact same KERNEL".

But using the exact same kernel is not the same thing as saying it's the exact same operating system.

>>Their competitors ARE complaining. Read any of the articles about Firefox and multitouch.<<

Small potatoes.  Read the Time article.

"But using the exact same kernel is not the same thing as saying it's the exact same operating system."

Then blame dearest leader on his typical lies then, cuz he's the one that came out and said it ran OS X.  Also, they couldn't make claims of that anyway, since by saying it was only the kernel, they'd have to call it "Mach", not "OS X".  Either it has the same kernel and it has the Aqua shell or it doesn't.  If it's all the same then it's OS X, and you should be able to run full OS X software on it.  If not, then it's a lie.  Take your pick.

"Are you suggesting that Apple claims that the iPod touch / iphone run the *same* full version of Leopard that is sold on the iMac?"

Actually they said it was Tiger since Leopard wasn't done yet....and it still isn't to this day.  

In any case, do they even do kernel updates in OS X point releases?  Do they in the iPhone in firmware updates?

Its nice to see that Microsoft can play in Apple's backyard and create a quality product. However, this tit for tat over secret API's merely proves a couple of things.

@tayme,

CEO's cannot make decisions that causes harm or interference with a competitors ability to compete fairly. With Apple introducing Kernel panics or restrictive code into OS-X and restrict exactly what goes on the iPhone via the App Store, Apple is risking an anti-trust suit. Not necessarily for a monopoly, but restriction of competition and conspiracy to leverage that advantage to the hindrance of fair competition. If Mozilla can prove that Apple is harming Firefox's ability to compete with Safari web browser, I think Mozilla could win a lawsuit. Besides, what does any competitor wants to hold back code? Its more trouble. If Safari is as good as Apple claims (and we know its not), then it doesn't need to hold back code to give its browser a temporary advantage.

If Microsoft cannot use specialized code to give Windows an advantage vs third parties, then Apple must be held to the same rules.

As for Silverlight and Flash being used on the iPhone, I don't see the harm. It would be up to Microsoft and Adobe to keep the security up to date. As someone who has actually used Silverlight, I think its an incredibly awesome plugin that was not only awesome during the Beijing Olympics, it was even better during the DNCC.

>>As someone who has actually used Silverlight, I think its an incredibly awesome plugin that was not only awesome during the Beijing Olympics, it was even better during the DNCC.<<

Why go closed when you can go standard and open and get the same results?

livelabs.com/.../new-seadragon-ajax

Wae,

Can you please show me where "dear leader" said what you say he said?

Also..why do you just immediately start calling him "dear leader".  It's like an illness for you.

@mikegalos and szhm - I guess that I was thinking in simpler terms. I was saying htat a CEO, or the company that the CEO represents, is free to decide to sell its product/service in a closed fasion...as mikegalos suggested that he things Steve Jobs sees for the Macintosh. I may be wrong...I don't claim to know all about every subjust like a certain programmer/evangelist/farmer/bus driver/etc. seems to on this site daily. I was just making a comment.

--tayme

In other news:

Leo in one of his "DUH!" moments:

www.youtube.com/.../Z-3YVQjEMbU

Anyway, it's amusing.

@Mike,

You may be right about the distinction between phone and computer being less reasonable.  But, Apple's power over the platform is beneficial for their brand in-so-far as they get to provide a filter.  Requiring SDK apps alone also means that the developers can/must exclusively target the OSX Touch hardware and not dilute the experience with contingencies for other form factors.

Then there's the benefits of lock-in by getting users invested in software that isn't portable to other platforms (probably the main reason NOT to support flash, silverlight or java).  That sure helped Windows establish and maintain dominance since there were no cross-platform dev environments back then.

We'll just have to see how the market reacts and how Apple adapts.  So far the choice/openness argument hasn't amounted to very much outside of uber-nerdville.  Users and developers are flocking to the platform, regardless of the limitations.  

When you roll in the iPod Touch, I'm fairly certain that the "OSX Touch" will have outsold all WinMo handsets combine for the year.   Notice the dominant position of the Touch on Amazon.  There may already be more OSX Touch users active than desktop Mac OSX.  That's pretty nuts.

Waethorn

But, it just works...

johnpapola

The problem with saying that the developers are there anyway about the problems with the iPhone developer program is that you have no idea what developers aren't there.

Could it be that there are a huge percentage of developers who are staying away because of Apple's unreasonable restrictions and unfair practices? Maybe.

Could it be that there aren't a huge percentage of developers who are staying away because of Apple's unreasonable restrictions and unfair practices? Maybe.

Drawing a conclusion off of the data isn't possible becuase the actual data doesn't exist. There's certainly anecdotal evidence to back up either claim.

Now, is there a shortage of flashlight apps or tip calculators? Clearly not.

Is there a "killer app" that's good enough to drive people to the platform? Clearly not.

Would there be a "killer app" if Apple treated their developers as partners rather than parasites? Maybe. But nobody knows.

In the long run, though, treating your 3rd party developers well is what makes a platform successful once the novelty wears off.

@mikegalos: Honest CEOs certainly don't reside at Microsoft. That's exactly the reason why Microsoft is known as Evil. Why they are convicted monopolists. Do you think they got that way and that reputation because they are honest? Nope.

You're a hypocrite talking about "secret APIs" when Microsoft has done the same thing.

Opening something to be a free for all and you end up with the dog's breakfast that is Windows and its ecosystem. You end up with a tarnished brand like Vista and Windows in general. End up blaming third parties for your mistakes, your wrong decisions over the years. You end up with terrible mobile operating systems like Windows Mobile. A horrible mistake trying to cram the same things you see in a desktop OS on a mobile device. It takes someone with balls to show someone that just copied, like Apple did for Microsoft, to show them to think outside the nerd square they reside in. Look at the horrors of Linux trying to get on the desktop? Apple even did that right. Took Unix and added the best OS UI in the world.

Microsoft is the new Xerox. Just a copier company.

@mikegalos: "Apple is currently using Secret APIs in their operating system that gives their applications an advantage over all of their competitors."

Don't lie about Microsoft not using secret APIs. Read here: www.inlumineconsulting.com/.../nt.sekrits.html

One of the most respected devs in the world, when it comes to Windows internals and system APIs, Mark Russinovich, even says that there are hidden APIs. So come clean and stop spreading lies. Are you saying that he is also lying?

Some more goodies: "For example when Microsoft released Internet Information Server (IIS), it significantly outperformed Netscape Server on the NT Platform. Microsoft insisted that its developers had not had any additional acceess to information than had Netscape developers. Yet after careful review, Netscape developers were able to utilize previously undisclosed information about NT in their own products. Future releases of Netscape Server were competitive with IIS in subsequent testing."

Like I said, you don't become known as Evil for no good reason.

@mikegalos: "The subject was, and still is, Apple's anti-competitive use of Secret APIs to give their own Application developers an unfair advantage over their competitors."

Do you know what the word hypocrite means? Anti-competitive? Microsoft was charged for that. Remember? Convicted of that. When you charge Apple with something like that, don't forget to mention that Microsoft has been charged and convicted of it. Remember to do that, okay?

@mikegalos: "Their competitors ARE complaining. Read any of the articles about Firefox and multitouch."

Read some stories about Novell, Netscape. Read about some of the dealing MS had with Intuit. Go read about being fair.

"When you charge Apple with something like that, don't forget to mention that Microsoft has been charged and convicted of it. Remember to do that, okay?"

Not necessary. It's irrelevant information and not useful in this context. Microsoft's past behavior doesn't justify Apple's current practice.

@shark47: "Not necessary. It's irrelevant information and not useful in this context. Microsoft's past behavior doesn't justify Apple's current practice."

You're another one from the Mike School of Hypocrites? Of course it matters. Mike's on his high horse going on about Apple's supposed wrong doing, something he also likes to claim about non-lies in Apple ads which he thinks are, yet he never mentions that MS partakes in the same activities which he dribbles on about Apple doing?

Ever heard the saying "The pot calling the kettle black"?

Hypocrites.

Nope. It would *probably* be hypocritical if Microsoft itself made those comments. I don't think Mike represents Microsoft. He doesn't have to add a disclaimer at the end of each one of his comments. Everytime someone criticizes Apple, someone here has to bring up Microsoft. I noticed panache and johnpapola doing that today. It would probably be fair if Mike was Microsoft's official spokesman or even an employee, maybe. But he isn't. He speaks for himself, not for the company.

This is seriously the most stupid back and forth I've ever seen completely UNRELATED to the topic.

WHAT THE H@LL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

You are all starting to sound like blithering idiots, trolls, and losers.

Pingback from  list of web servers | AMD.com hot tags