Let me give everyone an update on what is going on with Scratch.app, I've seen lots of discussion and speculation flow by on the esug, scratch and pharo lists, some of it correct, and some of it incorrect.
First, Scratch.app was remove from sale in the app store because the Scratch programming language is an interpreted language, and it's not on the approved interpreted language list. My understanding is that Apple has not yet rejected apps because they are "made" with a particular language. The rejection is solely due to the result of Scratch being a non approved 'interpreted" language.
Second, I drafted a letter titled: "Rejecting an app with foundations in the Dynabook vision" and posted it to: https://devforums.apple.com/thread/46425
At this time, this letter is not for public viewing since I want to have more discussion with Apple and the paid Apple developer community. It seems having public rage about the unfairness about what Apple is doing just makes Apple less receptive to dialog. I would ask the community not to cross post my letter anywhere until we have had more discussions with Apple. As an example this morning there was talk with a member of the App review team about having this matter ending up on Phil Shiller's desk.
Third, I sent a copy of the letter to Steve Jobs. He did respond. Our incomplete conversation is private, no solution or decision has been reached, and due to Apple's earnings reports coming up next tuesday I don't foresee any activity on the matter until after that event.
Fourth, I have interest & support from Dr Alan Kay, Dr Mitchel Resnick, and others, I think people do take the matter about the freedom to write applications in a language of their choosing and using a particular implementation (interpreted, JIT, compiled) seriously, so I hope movement with Apple on the general topic will occur shortly.
Once Apple's management team has made a response I'm sure you will all hear about it.
-- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:09 PM, John M McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com wrote:
Let me give everyone an update on what is going on with Scratch.app, I've seen lots of discussion and speculation flow by on the esug, scratch and pharo lists, some of it correct, and some of it incorrect.
First, Scratch.app was remove from sale in the app store because the Scratch programming language is an interpreted language, and it's not on the approved interpreted language list. My understanding is that Apple has not yet rejected apps because they are "made" with a particular language. The rejection is solely due to the result of Scratch being a non approved 'interpreted" language.
Second, I drafted a letter titled: "Rejecting an app with foundations in the Dynabook vision" and posted it to: https://devforums.apple.com/thread/46425
At this time, this letter is not for public viewing since I want to have more discussion with Apple and the paid Apple developer community. It seems having public rage about the unfairness about what Apple is doing just makes Apple less receptive to dialog. I would ask the community not to cross post my letter anywhere until we have had more discussions with Apple. As an example this morning there was talk with a member of the App review team about having this matter ending up on Phil Shiller's desk.
Third, I sent a copy of the letter to Steve Jobs. He did respond. Our incomplete conversation is private, no solution or decision has been reached, and due to Apple's earnings reports coming up next tuesday I don't foresee any activity on the matter until after that event.
Fourth, I have interest & support from Dr Alan Kay, Dr Mitchel Resnick, and others, I think people do take the matter about the freedom to write applications in a language of their choosing and using a particular implementation (interpreted, JIT, compiled) seriously, so I hope movement with Apple on the general topic will occur shortly.
Once Apple's management team has made a response I'm sure you will all hear about it.
--
John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
Yay
Karl
Thanks John. Keep us posted.
Cheers, - Andreas
On 4/16/2010 11:09 AM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Let me give everyone an update on what is going on with Scratch.app, I've seen lots of discussion and speculation flow by on the esug, scratch and pharo lists, some of it correct, and some of it incorrect.
First, Scratch.app was remove from sale in the app store because the Scratch programming language is an interpreted language, and it's not on the approved interpreted language list. My understanding is that Apple has not yet rejected apps because they are "made" with a particular language. The rejection is solely due to the result of Scratch being a non approved 'interpreted" language.
Second, I drafted a letter titled: "Rejecting an app with foundations in the Dynabook vision" and posted it to: https://devforums.apple.com/thread/46425
At this time, this letter is not for public viewing since I want to have more discussion with Apple and the paid Apple developer community. It seems having public rage about the unfairness about what Apple is doing just makes Apple less receptive to dialog. I would ask the community not to cross post my letter anywhere until we have had more discussions with Apple. As an example this morning there was talk with a member of the App review team about having this matter ending up on Phil Shiller's desk.
Third, I sent a copy of the letter to Steve Jobs. He did respond. Our incomplete conversation is private, no solution or decision has been reached, and due to Apple's earnings reports coming up next tuesday I don't foresee any activity on the matter until after that event.
Fourth, I have interest& support from Dr Alan Kay, Dr Mitchel Resnick, and others, I think people do take the matter about the freedom to write applications in a language of their choosing and using a particular implementation (interpreted, JIT, compiled) seriously, so I hope movement with Apple on the general topic will occur shortly.
Once Apple's management team has made a response I'm sure you will all hear about it.
--
John M. McIntoshjohnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
thanks john!
On Apr 16, 2010, at 8:09 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Let me give everyone an update on what is going on with Scratch.app, I've seen lots of discussion and speculation flow by on the esug, scratch and pharo lists, some of it correct, and some of it incorrect.
First, Scratch.app was remove from sale in the app store because the Scratch programming language is an interpreted language, and it's not on the approved interpreted language list. My understanding is that Apple has not yet rejected apps because they are "made" with a particular language. The rejection is solely due to the result of Scratch being a non approved 'interpreted" language.
Second, I drafted a letter titled: "Rejecting an app with foundations in the Dynabook vision" and posted it to: https://devforums.apple.com/thread/46425
At this time, this letter is not for public viewing since I want to have more discussion with Apple and the paid Apple developer community. It seems having public rage about the unfairness about what Apple is doing just makes Apple less receptive to dialog. I would ask the community not to cross post my letter anywhere until we have had more discussions with Apple. As an example this morning there was talk with a member of the App review team about having this matter ending up on Phil Shiller's desk.
Third, I sent a copy of the letter to Steve Jobs. He did respond. Our incomplete conversation is private, no solution or decision has been reached, and due to Apple's earnings reports coming up next tuesday I don't foresee any activity on the matter until after that event.
Fourth, I have interest & support from Dr Alan Kay, Dr Mitchel Resnick, and others, I think people do take the matter about the freedom to write applications in a language of their choosing and using a particular implementation (interpreted, JIT, compiled) seriously, so I hope movement with Apple on the general topic will occur shortly.
Once Apple's management team has made a response I'm sure you will all hear about it.
--
John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/listinfo/esug-list
Great news, Wired also picked up on the story:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/apple-scratch-app/
The more public outrage about Apple's policies, the better.
Cheers, - Andreas
On 4/16/2010 11:09 AM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Let me give everyone an update on what is going on with Scratch.app, I've seen lots of discussion and speculation flow by on the esug, scratch and pharo lists, some of it correct, and some of it incorrect.
First, Scratch.app was remove from sale in the app store because the Scratch programming language is an interpreted language, and it's not on the approved interpreted language list. My understanding is that Apple has not yet rejected apps because they are "made" with a particular language. The rejection is solely due to the result of Scratch being a non approved 'interpreted" language.
Second, I drafted a letter titled: "Rejecting an app with foundations in the Dynabook vision" and posted it to: https://devforums.apple.com/thread/46425
At this time, this letter is not for public viewing since I want to have more discussion with Apple and the paid Apple developer community. It seems having public rage about the unfairness about what Apple is doing just makes Apple less receptive to dialog. I would ask the community not to cross post my letter anywhere until we have had more discussions with Apple. As an example this morning there was talk with a member of the App review team about having this matter ending up on Phil Shiller's desk.
Third, I sent a copy of the letter to Steve Jobs. He did respond. Our incomplete conversation is private, no solution or decision has been reached, and due to Apple's earnings reports coming up next tuesday I don't foresee any activity on the matter until after that event.
Fourth, I have interest& support from Dr Alan Kay, Dr Mitchel Resnick, and others, I think people do take the matter about the freedom to write applications in a language of their choosing and using a particular implementation (interpreted, JIT, compiled) seriously, so I hope movement with Apple on the general topic will occur shortly.
Once Apple's management team has made a response I'm sure you will all hear about it.
--
John M. McIntoshjohnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
Here's Mitch Resnick's take:
http://blog.scratch.mit.edu/2010/04/scratch-on-iphone.html
- Bert -
On 20.04.2010, at 21:01, Andreas Raab wrote:
Great news, Wired also picked up on the story:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/apple-scratch-app/
The more public outrage about Apple's policies, the better.
Cheers,
- Andreas
On 4/16/2010 11:09 AM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Let me give everyone an update on what is going on with Scratch.app, I've seen lots of discussion and speculation flow by on the esug, scratch and pharo lists, some of it correct, and some of it incorrect.
First, Scratch.app was remove from sale in the app store because the Scratch programming language is an interpreted language, and it's not on the approved interpreted language list. My understanding is that Apple has not yet rejected apps because they are "made" with a particular language. The rejection is solely due to the result of Scratch being a non approved 'interpreted" language.
Second, I drafted a letter titled: "Rejecting an app with foundations in the Dynabook vision" and posted it to: https://devforums.apple.com/thread/46425
At this time, this letter is not for public viewing since I want to have more discussion with Apple and the paid Apple developer community. It seems having public rage about the unfairness about what Apple is doing just makes Apple less receptive to dialog. I would ask the community not to cross post my letter anywhere until we have had more discussions with Apple. As an example this morning there was talk with a member of the App review team about having this matter ending up on Phil Shiller's desk.
Third, I sent a copy of the letter to Steve Jobs. He did respond. Our incomplete conversation is private, no solution or decision has been reached, and due to Apple's earnings reports coming up next tuesday I don't foresee any activity on the matter until after that event.
Fourth, I have interest& support from Dr Alan Kay, Dr Mitchel Resnick, and others, I think people do take the matter about the freedom to write applications in a language of their choosing and using a particular implementation (interpreted, JIT, compiled) seriously, so I hope movement with Apple on the general topic will occur shortly.
Once Apple's management team has made a response I'm sure you will all hear about it.
--
John M. McIntoshjohnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
This morning there was a huge rumbling of email in my in-box. The result accumulated in Wired's nicely written article which you can find at http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/apple-scratch-app
At this time I have no further information to offer and I'm awaiting further communication from Apple. Alan Kay did contribute to the article, I did not, other than various quotes Wired lifted from my letter in the Apple Developer Forums.
-- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
Obviously I'm collecting media links on the issue http://www.mobilewikiserver.com/Scratch.html -- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
would be nice to mention somewhere that esug pays for the Squeak on iphone VM...
Stef (we know that ESUG is cool but may be other still doubts about it :).
On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:41 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Obviously I'm collecting media links on the issue http://www.mobilewikiserver.com/Scratch.html
=========================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Morning, I've posted the letter I had posted to the Apple developer forums and sent to Steve Jobs at
http://www.mobilewikiserver.com/Interpreters.html
I'll suggest there was some lifting of concept and quotes by Wired from letter.
As of this morning I have no further news, I have heard thru various sources that the issue is not dead yet,
So I wait.
On 2010-04-16, at 11:09 AM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Let me give everyone an update on what is going on with Scratch.app
-- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
Good! John in future version it may be good to mention that ESUG supported this VM work for the iphone.
STef
On Apr 21, 2010, at 8:12 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Morning, I've posted the letter I had posted to the Apple developer forums and sent to Steve Jobs at
http://www.mobilewikiserver.com/Interpreters.html
I'll suggest there was some lifting of concept and quotes by Wired from letter.
As of this morning I have no further news, I have heard thru various sources that the issue is not dead yet,
So I wait.
On 2010-04-16, at 11:09 AM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Let me give everyone an update on what is going on with Scratch.app
--
John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On 2010-04-21, at 1:13 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
Good! John in future version it may be good to mention that ESUG supported this VM work for the iphone.
STef
Yes, I did conduct a magazine interview today where I ensured I did mentioned that ESUG funding was instrumental in getting the foundations of Scratch (aka Squeak VM) onto the iPhone, otherwise it would never have happened.
As everyone should be aware Scratch as an interpreted language is not allowed, but in the future Smalltalk as a language not on the short list is not allowed even if it's hidden from view or ultimately cross compiled into an Objective-C application.
-- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:26 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
On 2010-04-21, at 1:13 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
Good! John in future version it may be good to mention that ESUG supported this VM work for the iphone.
STef
Yes, I did conduct a magazine interview today where I ensured I did mentioned that ESUG funding was instrumental in getting the foundations of Scratch (aka Squeak VM) onto the iPhone, otherwise it would never have happened.
Excellent!
As everyone should be aware Scratch as an interpreted language is not allowed, but in the future Smalltalk as a language not on the short list is not allowed even if it's hidden from view or ultimately cross compiled into an Objective-C application.
Great! But nothing really new on that front.
Stef
I've been surprised that I haven't seen any statement from ESUG re: how these policies negatively impact the future prospects for Smalltalk on the iPhone/iPad and the investments they've made in the platform to date that Apple seems willing to wipe out. Wouldn't now be a good time to try to get some visibility on the larger issue?
Phil
On Apr 21, 2010, at 4:13 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
Good! John in future version it may be good to mention that ESUG supported this VM work for the iphone.
STef
On Apr 21, 2010, at 8:12 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Morning, I've posted the letter I had posted to the Apple developer forums and sent to Steve Jobs at
http://www.mobilewikiserver.com/Interpreters.html
I'll suggest there was some lifting of concept and quotes by Wired from letter.
As of this morning I have no further news, I have heard thru various sources that the issue is not dead yet,
So I wait.
On 2010-04-16, at 11:09 AM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Let me give everyone an update on what is going on with Scratch.app
-- = = = = = = ===================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com = = = = = = =====================================================================
Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:29 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
I've been surprised that I haven't seen any statement from ESUG re: how these policies negatively impact the future prospects for Smalltalk on the iPhone/iPad and the investments they've made in the platform to date that Apple seems willing to wipe out. Wouldn't now be a good time to try to get some visibility on the larger issue?
We were waiting to get news from the scratch story. And also I'm not a really good politically correct person to write that so any text to start with would help the board to produce a statement going in that direction.
Stef
Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG etc), to stay claim and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a further decision or statement.
Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now time to consider what to do next.
So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to do something.
At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the problem in a meaningful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
On 2010-04-21, at 1:29 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
I've been surprised that I haven't seen any statement from ESUG re: how these policies negatively impact the future prospects for Smalltalk on the iPhone/iPad and the investments they've made in the platform to date that Apple seems willing to wipe out. Wouldn't now be a good time to try to get some visibility on the larger issue?
Phil
-- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM, John M McIntosh < johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com> wrote:
Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG etc), to stay claim and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a further decision or statement.
Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now time to consider what to do next.
So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to do something.
At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the problem in a meaningful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
Port to Android asap. Competitive pressure can make Apple move. I'm not sure about anything else.
On 2010-04-21, at 1:29 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
I've been surprised that I haven't seen any statement from ESUG re: how
these policies negatively impact the future prospects for Smalltalk on the iPhone/iPad and the investments they've made in the platform to date that Apple seems willing to wipe out. Wouldn't now be a good time to try to get some visibility on the larger issue?
Phil
--
John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
On 21.04.2010, at 22:56, Eliot Miranda wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM, John M McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com wrote: Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG etc), to stay claim and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a further decision or statement.
Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now time to consider what to do next.
So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to do something.
At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the problem in a meaningful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
Port to Android asap. Competitive pressure can make Apple move. I'm not sure about anything else.
Apple will move eventually. I found this illuminating about their motives:
http://www.asktog.com/columns/082iPad&Mac.html
- Bert -
On 22 April 2010 00:57, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 21.04.2010, at 22:56, Eliot Miranda wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM, John M McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com wrote:
Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG etc), to stay claim and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a further decision or statement.
Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now time to consider what to do next.
So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to do something.
At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the problem in a meaningful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
Port to Android asap. Competitive pressure can make Apple move. I'm not sure about anything else.
Apple will move eventually. I found this illuminating about their motives: http://www.asktog.com/columns/082iPad&Mac.html
I found it a bit depressive. I can do one little conclusion from it: It sounds like only Steve Jobs reserves the right to make great things, while others should sit and wait, until he will generously allow them to use it. It also seems like all developers in the world, already stamped by his “THIS IS S___!” red stamp, without even noticed. So, no matter what they do, or how great their ideas is, its worthless, because Great Steve didn't blessed it.
So, i feel a big disdain, because the above shows only an egocentric, childish and ill-minded nature of Apple's head. - Hear plebs, a made a new iThing for you. Eat my flesh, drink my blood.
- Bert -
I don't view it this way at all. There are plenty of valid reasons for the steps that Apple has taken. It's difficult to make a really great product when you have lots of difference constituencies you have to worry about as you move forward. Constraining the variables helps ensure you can deliver a good product with finite resources. It's only about control in the sense that they need to exert a certain amount of control to ensure the product isn't crushed by the weight of its own success and that they can continue to deliver a great end user experience.
Btw, there is a pretty vibrant jailbreak community where you can run whatever you want on the devices.
- Stephen
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:
I found it a bit depressive. I can do one little conclusion from it: It sounds like only Steve Jobs reserves the right to make great things, while others should sit and wait, until he will generously allow them to use it. It also seems like all developers in the world, already stamped by his “THIS IS S___!” red stamp, without even noticed. So, no matter what they do, or how great their ideas is, its worthless, because Great Steve didn't blessed it.
So, i feel a big disdain, because the above shows only an egocentric, childish and ill-minded nature of Apple's head.
- Hear plebs, a made a new iThing for you. Eat my flesh, drink my blood.
On 22 April 2010 02:21, Stephen Pair stephen@pairhome.net wrote:
I don't view it this way at all. There are plenty of valid reasons for the steps that Apple has taken. It's difficult to make a really great product when you have lots of difference constituencies you have to worry about as you move forward. Constraining the variables helps ensure you can deliver a good product with finite resources. It's only about control in the sense that they need to exert a certain amount of control to ensure the product isn't crushed by the weight of its own success and that they can continue to deliver a great end user experience.
Flawed reasoning. See: You can fall a victim of own success only, if you can't cope with competitors and quality of your products is become lower than theirs. Sure, this is likely to happen in a big and vibrant atmosphere, where new ideas constantly popping up from everywhere. And to secure yourself from such fault, it is logical to seal your product, and put barriers between developers and consumers. So, in that way, you can be sure that your products will be always of highest quality. But the point is, that "high quality" there is only because you don't give others a chance to compete & play on the same ground and use same rules and access same resources as you do. Its like playing a dice game with someone, who at every his roll declaring that he wons, because he just changed the rules, , and at every your roll saying that you lose, because rules changed again. So its not matter what your dices shows - you'll aways lose.
I am glad, that there is at least Google using different philosophy for their products.
Btw, there is a pretty vibrant jailbreak community where you can run whatever you want on the devices.
- Stephen
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:
I found it a bit depressive. I can do one little conclusion from it: It sounds like only Steve Jobs reserves the right to make great things, while others should sit and wait, until he will generously allow them to use it. It also seems like all developers in the world, already stamped by his “THIS IS S___!” red stamp, without even noticed. So, no matter what they do, or how great their ideas is, its worthless, because Great Steve didn't blessed it.
So, i feel a big disdain, because the above shows only an egocentric, childish and ill-minded nature of Apple's head.
- Hear plebs, a made a new iThing for you. Eat my flesh, drink my blood.
Em 21-04-2010 19:55, Igor Stasenko escreveu:
On 22 April 2010 00:57, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 21.04.2010, at 22:56, Eliot Miranda wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM, John M McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com wrote:
Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG etc), to stay claim and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a further decision or statement.
Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now time to consider what to do next.
So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to do something.
At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the problem in a meaningful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
Port to Android asap. Competitive pressure can make Apple move. I'm not sure about anything else.
Apple will move eventually. I found this illuminating about their motives: http://www.asktog.com/columns/082iPad&Mac.html
I found it a bit depressive. I can do one little conclusion from it: It sounds like only Steve Jobs reserves the right to make great things, while others should sit and wait, until he will generously allow them to use it. It also seems like all developers in the world, already stamped by his “THIS IS S___!” red stamp, without even noticed. So, no matter what they do, or how great their ideas is, its worthless, because Great Steve didn't blessed it.
So, i feel a big disdain, because the above shows only an egocentric, childish and ill-minded nature of Apple's head.
- Hear plebs, a made a new iThing for you. Eat my flesh, drink my blood.
- Bert -
Never mind. HP tablet is just few months away. Ok, it runs Windows 7 but I guess it will also possible install Linux... So a tablet that can make use of Windows & Linux and people will be free to develop/install/use whatever suit their needs. Oh... and that without messing WiFi networks (hopefully).
CdAB
On 22.04.2010, at 02:15, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto wrote:
Em 21-04-2010 19:55, Igor Stasenko escreveu:
On 22 April 2010 00:57, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 21.04.2010, at 22:56, Eliot Miranda wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM, John M McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com wrote:
Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG etc), to stay claim and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a further decision or statement.
Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now time to consider what to do next.
So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to do something.
At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the problem in a meaningful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
Port to Android asap. Competitive pressure can make Apple move. I'm not sure about anything else.
Apple will move eventually. I found this illuminating about their motives: http://www.asktog.com/columns/082iPad&Mac.html
I found it a bit depressive. I can do one little conclusion from it: It sounds like only Steve Jobs reserves the right to make great things, while others should sit and wait, until he will generously allow them to use it. It also seems like all developers in the world, already stamped by his “THIS IS S___!” red stamp, without even noticed. So, no matter what they do, or how great their ideas is, its worthless, because Great Steve didn't blessed it.
So, i feel a big disdain, because the above shows only an egocentric, childish and ill-minded nature of Apple's head.
- Hear plebs, a made a new iThing for you. Eat my flesh, drink my blood.
- Bert -
Never mind. HP tablet is just few months away. Ok, it runs Windows 7 but I guess it will also possible install Linux... So a tablet that can make use of Windows & Linux and people will be free to develop/install/use whatever suit their needs. Oh... and that without messing WiFi networks (hopefully).
CdAB
The HP seems underwhelming.
The NotionInk Adam seems much more exciting, with a Pixel Qi display, dual-core ARM, NVIDIA graphics, running Android:
- Bert -
Em 21-04-2010 21:34, Bert Freudenberg escreveu:
(...) The HP seems underwhelming.
The NotionInk Adam seems much more exciting, with a Pixel Qi display, dual-core ARM, NVIDIA graphics, running Android:
- Bert -
Yes, it seems to be really interesting...
CdAB
John & Stephane,
Fair enough and good to know that folks like ESUG will be weighing in. I think you're on the right track re: gathering vocal support from the Scratch community that is constructive rather than bashing Apple, and have mainly been wondering why there wasn't a more concerted push from the Smalltalk and dynamic languages community in general talking about how policies like this would make iPhone OS a non-viable platform for them and push them to invest in alternatives such as Android to the exclusion of iPhone OS, rather than in addition to it. I'm not sure how much additional impact that would have, but the endgame for many tools/languages on iPhone OS doesn't seem to be very far off and I'm not terribly optimistic on how this will be decided.
Thanks, Phil
On Apr 21, 2010, at 4:48 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG etc), to stay claim and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a further decision or statement.
Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now time to consider what to do next.
So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to do something.
At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the problem in a meaningful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
On 2010-04-21, at 1:29 PM, Phil (list) wrote:
I've been surprised that I haven't seen any statement from ESUG re: how these policies negatively impact the future prospects for Smalltalk on the iPhone/iPad and the investments they've made in the platform to date that Apple seems willing to wipe out. Wouldn't now be a good time to try to get some visibility on the larger issue?
Phil
-- = = = = = ====================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http:// www.smalltalkconsulting.com = = = = = ======================================================================
2010/4/21 John M McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com
Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG etc), to stay claim and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a further decision or statement.
Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now time to consider what to do next.
So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to do something.
At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the problem in a meaningful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
I guess you already though about this one but hit *gently* where it hurts: Google.
Explain there a few things: in one hand Apple decided to wipe out non home dev. tools, in the other hand Android is wide open, then Google support dynamic languages, and Smalltalk particularly, throught GSoC initiative.
Hilaire
Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
Suggestions are welcome.
I guess you already though about this one but hit *gently* where it hurts: Google.
Perhaps and perhaps not: the press has speculated that the threat from Google is a major reason why Apple has brought in the more restrictive developer agreement this year.
I interpret the latest message from Apple as: if you don't want to develop in Objective-C/Cocoa, then go to Android. Apple chose quite consciously to fight an open platform by decreasing openness. This blunt instrument is a possible threat to applications with Smalltalk under the hood, even when they do not make development environments available to users, bypass the app store or make things easier to port to other brands of phones and tablets.
This possibility is particularly sad, partly because of the intimately intertwined history of Apple, Smalltalk and Objective-C, and partly because John put in so much effort to successfully find elegant ways for Smalltalk objects to speak with the iPhone Cocoa objects, and satisfy Apple's rules as they stood last year.
There is also the sadness that Apple may lock iPhone/iPad users out of the future of the Dynabook: VPRI's TileScript is a Javascript educational development environment, but as far as I understood the research report, it runs on Squeak not Safari.
At Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:00:46 +0100, David Corking wrote:
There is also the sadness that Apple may lock iPhone/iPad users out of the future of the Dynabook: VPRI's TileScript is a Javascript educational development environment, but as far as I understood the research report, it runs on Squeak not Safari.
The good news is that there was also a version of TileScript running in a browser. It is conceivable that somebody provided a very elaborated GUI framework (could be something in Lively Kernel), and server side support to create an application store. But of course Apple could then ban it...
-- Yoshiki
As it is now, Lively almost is unusable in MobileSafari, which is a shame (the Hand doesn't understand the touch screen.) Clamato fares a bit better UI-wise, but the Caesar browser needs reworking to fit on the screen effectively (even on the iPad,) and typing feels sluggish.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Yoshiki Ohshima yoshiki@vpri.org wrote:
At Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:00:46 +0100, David Corking wrote:
There is also the sadness that Apple may lock iPhone/iPad users out of the future of the Dynabook: VPRI's TileScript is a Javascript educational development environment, but as far as I understood the research report, it runs on Squeak not Safari.
The good news is that there was also a version of TileScript running in a browser. It is conceivable that somebody provided a very elaborated GUI framework (could be something in Lively Kernel), and server side support to create an application store. But of course Apple could then ban it...
-- Yoshiki
2010/4/22 Hilaire Fernandes hilaire@ofset.org
2010/4/21 John M McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com
Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG etc), to stay claim
and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a further decision or statement.
Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now time to consider what to do next.
So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to do something.
At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the problem in a meaningful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
I guess you already though about this one but hit *gently* where it hurts: Google.
Explain there a few things: in one hand Apple decided to wipe out non home dev. tools, in the other hand Android is wide open, then Google support dynamic languages, and Smalltalk particularly, throught GSoC initiative.
Hilaire
-- http://blog.ofset.org/hilaire
The problem with Apple policies regarding to what *they allow* to be
installed either in iPhone and iPad extrapolates by far the problem of what computer languages *they allow* applications be developed in. They're actively practicing private censorship over general processing platforms. This is monopolist action and by all means wrong and possibly unlawful against consumers. If they intend to take such actions they should advertise everywhere that *any aplication/content* allowed to be installed in iPhone/iPad via AppleStore (the only valid source of applications and content unless you jailbreak your iPhone/iPad which is contrary to license agreement) is subject to previous approval by Apple and content may be removed at short notice.
So, the problem goes far beyond scratch.
BTW, it is so important that unless they change their police I stopped to develop anything using Apple platforms.
CdAB
It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows). Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software. I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
It's a much simpler problem if they only have to worry about breaking Objective-C and web apps all using official, documented and published APIs moving forward than if they have to worry about a mixed bag of apps all using various idiosyncratic technologies accessing undocumented APIs. As for the AppStore, it's a practical solution to the problem of viruses and malware (there is certainly demand for computers that just work, where viruses and malware are not an issue...the virus problem in Windows has been quite successful in fostering an appetite for that). The AppStore not an ideal solution to that problem, but they are having to work with 40 year old operating system technology here. The AppStore has also been quite successful in dealing with some of the peripheral problems software publishers face (like distribution and payment processing) and in so doing has created a viable business model for thousands of small software publishers.
I don't mean to come across sounding like an Apple apologist, but the arguments here seem to be very one sided. I simply want to express an alternative view.
Of course, having said all of this, I would still like to be able to use Smalltalk to write apps for my iPhone.
- Stephen
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:42 PM, casimiro barreto < casimiro.barreto@gmail.com> wrote:
2010/4/22 Hilaire Fernandes hilaire@ofset.org
2010/4/21 John M McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com
Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG etc), to stay claim
and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a further decision or statement.
Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now time to consider what to do next.
So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to do something.
At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the problem in a meaningful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
I guess you already though about this one but hit *gently* where it hurts: Google.
Explain there a few things: in one hand Apple decided to wipe out non home dev. tools, in the other hand Android is wide open, then Google support dynamic languages, and Smalltalk particularly, throught GSoC initiative.
Hilaire
-- http://blog.ofset.org/hilaire
The problem with Apple policies regarding to what *they allow* to be
installed either in iPhone and iPad extrapolates by far the problem of what computer languages *they allow* applications be developed in. They're actively practicing private censorship over general processing platforms. This is monopolist action and by all means wrong and possibly unlawful against consumers. If they intend to take such actions they should advertise everywhere that *any aplication/content* allowed to be installed in iPhone/iPad via AppleStore (the only valid source of applications and content unless you jailbreak your iPhone/iPad which is contrary to license agreement) is subject to previous approval by Apple and content may be removed at short notice.
So, the problem goes far beyond scratch.
BTW, it is so important that unless they change their police I stopped to develop anything using Apple platforms.
CdAB
Stephen Pair wrote:
It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows). Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software. I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
It's a much simpler problem if they only have to worry about breaking Objective-C and web apps all using official, documented and published APIs moving forward than if they have to worry about a mixed bag of apps all using various idiosyncratic technologies accessing undocumented APIs. As for the AppStore, it's a practical solution to the problem of viruses and malware (there is certainly demand for computers that just work, where viruses and malware are not an issue...the virus problem in Windows has been quite successful in fostering an appetite for that). The AppStore not an ideal solution to that problem, but they are having to work with 40 year old operating system technology here. The AppStore has also been quite successful in dealing with some of the peripheral problems software publishers face (like distribution and payment processing) and in so doing has created a viable business model for thousands of small software publishers.
I don't mean to come across sounding like an Apple apologist, but the arguments here seem to be very one sided. I simply want to express an alternative view.
Of course, having said all of this, I would still like to be able to use Smalltalk to write apps for my iPhone.
- Stephen
All of what you say is quite possibly true. HOWEVER, Scratch on the iPhone isn't really Squeak on the iphone, but a very tiny subset of squeak's capabilities exposed to grade school programmers. As far as I know, there's no way in scratch to directly access ANY iphone capability. Its all done in the scratch programming sandbox, so the ban on Scratch is just an overly literal reading of Apple's ban on 3rd party IDEs.
IMHO.
Lawson
On 22.04.2010, at 23:15, Lawson English wrote:
Stephen Pair wrote:
It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows). Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software. I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
It's a much simpler problem if they only have to worry about breaking Objective-C and web apps all using official, documented and published APIs moving forward than if they have to worry about a mixed bag of apps all using various idiosyncratic technologies accessing undocumented APIs. As for the AppStore, it's a practical solution to the problem of viruses and malware (there is certainly demand for computers that just work, where viruses and malware are not an issue...the virus problem in Windows has been quite successful in fostering an appetite for that). The AppStore not an ideal solution to that problem, but they are having to work with 40 year old operating system technology here. The AppStore has also been quite successful in dealing with some of the peripheral problems software publishers face (like distribution and payment processing) and in so doing has created a viable business model for thousands of small software publishers.
I don't mean to come across sounding like an Apple apologist, but the arguments here seem to be very one sided. I simply want to express an alternative view.
Of course, having said all of this, I would still like to be able to use Smalltalk to write apps for my iPhone.
- Stephen
All of what you say is quite possibly true. HOWEVER, Scratch on the iPhone isn't really Squeak on the iphone, but a very tiny subset of squeak's capabilities exposed to grade school programmers. As far as I know, there's no way in scratch to directly access ANY iphone capability. Its all done in the scratch programming sandbox, so the ban on Scratch is just an overly literal reading of Apple's ban on 3rd party IDEs.
The banning of Scratch has *nothing* to do with the fact that it's written in Squeak. All the other Squeak apps are still in the app store.
Apples language restriction only applies to iPhone OS 4. That is no going to be released before the summer.
Apple has not removed a single app because of what language it was implemented in. Yet.
Now I neither like the removal of Scratch nor the possible future restriction of languages. But lets keep to the facts.
Maybe we could see a raise of hands who is actually working on a Squeak app for the iPhone / iPad?
- Bert -
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 22.04.2010, at 23:15, Lawson English wrote:
Stephen Pair wrote:
It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows). Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software. I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
It's a much simpler problem if they only have to worry about breaking Objective-C and web apps all using official, documented and published APIs moving forward than if they have to worry about a mixed bag of apps all using various idiosyncratic technologies accessing undocumented APIs. As for the AppStore, it's a practical solution to the problem of viruses and malware (there is certainly demand for computers that just work, where viruses and malware are not an issue...the virus problem in Windows has been quite successful in fostering an appetite for that). The AppStore not an ideal solution to that problem, but they are having to work with 40 year old operating system technology here. The AppStore has also been quite successful in dealing with some of the peripheral problems software publishers face (like distribution and payment processing) and in so doing has created a viable business model for thousands of small software publishers.
I don't mean to come across sounding like an Apple apologist, but the arguments here seem to be very one sided. I simply want to express an alternative view.
Of course, having said all of this, I would still like to be able to use Smalltalk to write apps for my iPhone.
- Stephen
All of what you say is quite possibly true. HOWEVER, Scratch on the iPhone isn't really Squeak on the iphone, but a very tiny subset of squeak's capabilities exposed to grade school programmers. As far as I know, there's no way in scratch to directly access ANY iphone capability. Its all done in the scratch programming sandbox, so the ban on Scratch is just an overly literal reading of Apple's ban on 3rd party IDEs.
The banning of Scratch has *nothing* to do with the fact that it's written in Squeak. All the other Squeak apps are still in the app store.
Apples language restriction only applies to iPhone OS 4. That is no going to be released before the summer.
Apple has not removed a single app because of what language it was implemented in. Yet.
Now I neither like the removal of Scratch nor the possible future restriction of languages. But lets keep to the facts.
Maybe we could see a raise of hands who is actually working on a Squeak app for the iPhone / iPad?
I'm not sure if you were clarifying what I wrote or correcting something I said the wrong way...
Either way, I don't quite see how what you said is any different than what I said.
Lawson
On 23.04.2010, at 00:01, Lawson English wrote:
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 22.04.2010, at 23:15, Lawson English wrote:
Stephen Pair wrote:
It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows). Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software. I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
It's a much simpler problem if they only have to worry about breaking Objective-C and web apps all using official, documented and published APIs moving forward than if they have to worry about a mixed bag of apps all using various idiosyncratic technologies accessing undocumented APIs. As for the AppStore, it's a practical solution to the problem of viruses and malware (there is certainly demand for computers that just work, where viruses and malware are not an issue...the virus problem in Windows has been quite successful in fostering an appetite for that). The AppStore not an ideal solution to that problem, but they are having to work with 40 year old operating system technology here. The AppStore has also been quite successful in dealing with some of the peripheral problems software publishers face (like distribution and payment processing) and in so doing has created a viable business model for thousands of small software publishers.
I don't mean to come across sounding like an Apple apologist, but the arguments here seem to be very one sided. I simply want to express an alternative view.
Of course, having said all of this, I would still like to be able to use Smalltalk to write apps for my iPhone.
- Stephen
All of what you say is quite possibly true. HOWEVER, Scratch on the iPhone isn't really Squeak on the iphone, but a very tiny subset of squeak's capabilities exposed to grade school programmers. As far as I know, there's no way in scratch to directly access ANY iphone capability. Its all done in the scratch programming sandbox, so the ban on Scratch is just an overly literal reading of Apple's ban on 3rd party IDEs.
The banning of Scratch has *nothing* to do with the fact that it's written in Squeak. All the other Squeak apps are still in the app store.
Apples language restriction only applies to iPhone OS 4. That is no going to be released before the summer.
Apple has not removed a single app because of what language it was implemented in. Yet.
Now I neither like the removal of Scratch nor the possible future restriction of languages. But lets keep to the facts.
Maybe we could see a raise of hands who is actually working on a Squeak app for the iPhone / iPad?
I'm not sure if you were clarifying what I wrote or correcting something I said the wrong way...
Either way, I don't quite see how what you said is any different than what I said.
You wrote "the ban on Scratch is just an overly literal reading of Apple's ban on 3rd party IDEs". No, the ban has nothing to do with 3rd party IDEs. That rule isn't even in effect yet.
Scratch was banned because it *downloads scripts and runs them* as part of scratch projects. You should read John's open letter where he correctly argues that this effectively prevents even dynamic ebooks. Which the iPad would be a superb platform for, if it wasn't for those arbitrary restrictions.
- Bert -
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.dewrote:
All of what you say is quite possibly true. HOWEVER, Scratch on the
iPhone isn't really Squeak on the iphone, but a very tiny subset of squeak's capabilities exposed to grade school programmers. As far as I know, there's no way in scratch to directly access ANY iphone capability. Its all done in the scratch programming sandbox, so the ban on Scratch is just an overly literal reading of Apple's ban on 3rd party IDEs.
The banning of Scratch has *nothing* to do with the fact that it's written in Squeak. All the other Squeak apps are still in the app store.
Apples language restriction only applies to iPhone OS 4. That is no going to be released before the summer.
Apple has not removed a single app because of what language it was implemented in. Yet.
Now I neither like the removal of Scratch nor the possible future restriction of languages. But lets keep to the facts.
Maybe we could see a raise of hands who is actually working on a Squeak app for the iPhone / iPad?
- Bert -
There is an important point that Lawson makes and that is that you cannot directly access native iPhone features in scratch, and as such, it would not make for a suitable alternative to Apple's IDE for people wanting to build native iPhone apps. Perhaps it is on those grounds that Apple could be convinced to reverse its decision about Scratch (and perhaps it might lead them to fine tune the language in their agreement).
- Stephen
I like the theory that the iPad CPU is not an ARM copy, but much more powerful, running an ARM emulator.
Forcing developers to Object C is a way to insulate them from the coming native CPU instruction set unveiling and swap over. This is just what they did with the switch to Intel.
However, with Squeak's open VM, and independence of from any native UI, it's much easier to port Squeak and its derivatives to a new CPU than for any other applications out there. Yet, it might be swept up with the rest as "too buggy to port or support".
Nevertheless, if Apple came out with an "eduPad" for the DIY group, with a separate EduAppStore using a different developer licensing agreement where they don't guarantee app quality (and an extra fee for filtering the nasty from kids), they might sell half again more iPads ... to the kids so that they don't use their parents' "perfect pads" and sell more to schools. The EduAppStore purchases and app installation would be controlled by the parentPad and/or the school district. This could be done with almost no more overhead for Apple. And then, when the kids break their pads, as they always do, Apple sells more. ;-)
Cheers, Darius
On Apr 22, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Darius Clarke wrote:
I like the theory that the iPad CPU is not an ARM copy, but much more powerful, running an ARM emulator.
I like the theory too, because it makes me laugh. I bet it would be *awesome* for battery life. Come on, let's not be silly. :-)
Cheers, Josh
Yes, I agree it's funny. But remember ... Apple engineered a new battery for the iPhone to make the impossible iPhone well, possible. :-) - Darius
It's a Cortex clone. (ARM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A4
On Apr 22, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Josh Gargus josh@schwa.ca wrote:
On Apr 22, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Darius Clarke wrote:
I like the theory that the iPad CPU is not an ARM copy, but much more powerful, running an ARM emulator.
I like the theory too, because it makes me laugh. I bet it would be *awesome* for battery life. Come on, let's not be silly. :-)
Cheers, Josh
2010/4/22 Stephen Pair stephen@pairhome.net
It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows). Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software. I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
They have monopoly over platform (iPhone and iPad) and until other tablets reach market they have monopoly over tablet market.
Suppose Job's idea flourishes and Microsoft decides next version of Windows will load applications via MicrosoftStore only and that they decide which applications are fit for Windows and which aren't and, more than that, what content is appropriate for Microsoft attendance and what is not (like well... no P2P, no Flash, multimedia only via ... you got the picture).
Suppose everybody let this frog go down our throats and Jobs think: "well, it would be nice if all MacOS X applications could only be loaded through AppleStore..."
The trouble with the iPhone/iPad marketing model goes far beyond Apple controlling things that can crash iPhone/iPad. It means that us, as developers, have to beg blessings to have the applications we develop available for a given platform; that we submit ourselves to the scrutiny of someone else than the customers or each country legal system and even so, "platform god" is free to decide that your application is not "appropriate" to *his* platform anymore and just throw you out of market.
But it is really worse than that because, if your application let you upload something *"filth"* like Kama Sutra (wtf) then both your application *and*content can be banished from god's own store. Btw, Bukovisky works were banished from AppleStore (among many other authors).
But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... yeah I think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem.
It's a much simpler problem if they only have to worry about breaking Objective-C and web apps all using official, documented and published APIs moving forward than if they have to worry about a mixed bag of apps all using various idiosyncratic technologies accessing undocumented APIs. As for the AppStore, it's a practical solution to the problem of viruses and malware (there is certainly demand for computers that just work, where viruses and malware are not an issue...the virus problem in Windows has been quite successful in fostering an appetite for that). The AppStore not an ideal solution to that problem, but they are having to work with 40 year old operating system technology here. The AppStore has also been quite successful in dealing with some of the peripheral problems software publishers face (like distribution and payment processing) and in so doing has created a viable business model for thousands of small software publishers.
I don't mean to come across sounding like an Apple apologist, but the arguments here seem to be very one sided. I simply want to express an alternative view.
Of course, having said all of this, I would still like to be able to use Smalltalk to write apps for my iPhone.
- Stephen
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:42 PM, casimiro barreto < casimiro.barreto@gmail.com> wrote:
2010/4/22 Hilaire Fernandes hilaire@ofset.org
2010/4/21 John M McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com
Phil, last week I asked the smalltalk community (ESUG etc), to stay
claim and wait for Apple to think about it based on an email exchange I had with Steve Jobs. At the time I thought it prudent to wait a further decision or statement.
Give that Wired publish Alan & my thoughts on the matter it's likely now time to consider what to do next.
So this is NOT the fault of ESUG not being proactive, they were itching to do something.
At the moment I believe they are collecting ideas how to approach the problem in a meaningful manner. Suggestions are welcome.
I guess you already though about this one but hit *gently* where it hurts: Google.
Explain there a few things: in one hand Apple decided to wipe out non home dev. tools, in the other hand Android is wide open, then Google support dynamic languages, and Smalltalk particularly, throught GSoC initiative.
Hilaire
-- http://blog.ofset.org/hilaire
The problem with Apple policies regarding to what *they allow* to be
installed either in iPhone and iPad extrapolates by far the problem of what computer languages *they allow* applications be developed in. They're actively practicing private censorship over general processing platforms. This is monopolist action and by all means wrong and possibly unlawful against consumers. If they intend to take such actions they should advertise everywhere that *any aplication/content* allowed to be installed in iPhone/iPad via AppleStore (the only valid source of applications and content unless you jailbreak your iPhone/iPad which is contrary to license agreement) is subject to previous approval by Apple and content may be removed at short notice.
So, the problem goes far beyond scratch.
BTW, it is so important that unless they change their police I stopped to develop anything using Apple platforms.
CdAB
CdAB
On 23 April 2010 02:44, casimiro barreto casimiro.barreto@gmail.com wrote:
2010/4/22 Stephen Pair stephen@pairhome.net
It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows). Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software. I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
They have monopoly over platform (iPhone and iPad) and until other tablets reach market they have monopoly over tablet market.
Suppose Job's idea flourishes and Microsoft decides next version of Windows will load applications via MicrosoftStore only and that they decide which applications are fit for Windows and which aren't and, more than that, what content is appropriate for Microsoft attendance and what is not (like well... no P2P, no Flash, multimedia only via ... you got the picture).
Suppose everybody let this frog go down our throats and Jobs think: "well, it would be nice if all MacOS X applications could only be loaded through AppleStore..."
The trouble with the iPhone/iPad marketing model goes far beyond Apple controlling things that can crash iPhone/iPad. It means that us, as developers, have to beg blessings to have the applications we develop available for a given platform; that we submit ourselves to the scrutiny of someone else than the customers or each country legal system and even so, "platform god" is free to decide that your application is not "appropriate" to his platform anymore and just throw you out of market.
But it is really worse than that because, if your application let you upload something "filth" like Kama Sutra (wtf) then both your application and content can be banished from god's own store. Btw, Bukovisky works were banished from AppleStore (among many other authors).
But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... yeah I think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem.
Yup. And they deserving it:
http://linuxoniphone.blogspot.com/2010/04/ive-been-working-on-this-quietly-i...
Em 22-04-2010 21:23, Igor Stasenko escreveu:
(...) Yup. And they deserving it:
http://linuxoniphone.blogspot.com/2010/04/ive-been-working-on-this-quietly-i...
Yes. But if you look at product licensing it's not allowed to install android in an iPhone. That leads to the question: your iPhone is yours or is it Apple's & you have just a "license to use" the device... So, I prefer to purchase a native Android phone.
CdAB
On 23 April 2010 05:15, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto casimiro.barreto@gmail.com wrote:
Em 22-04-2010 21:23, Igor Stasenko escreveu:
(...) Yup. And they deserving it:
http://linuxoniphone.blogspot.com/2010/04/ive-been-working-on-this-quietly-i...
Yes. But if you look at product licensing it's not allowed to install android in an iPhone. That leads to the question: your iPhone is yours or is it Apple's & you have just a "license to use" the device... So, I prefer to purchase a native Android phone.
Its up to those who using this expensive toy. My mobile is maybe 8 years old, cost me 50 bucks.. and i barely using it for calls, because i usually contact with people using mail :)
CdAB
On Friday 23 April 2010 07:45:42 am Casimiro de Almeida Barreto wrote:
Yes. But if you look at product licensing it's not allowed to install android in an iPhone. That leads to the question: your iPhone is yours or is it Apple's & you have just a "license to use" the device... So, I prefer to purchase a native Android phone.
There is a difference between a 'sale' (purchase ownership) and a 'license' (purchase right to use). If you paid bought an iPhone (and not leased it), it would constitute a 'sale' regardless of the small print on the tin. A seller cannot take away ownership rights by calling the transaction a 'license'. This may void warranty, though.
IANAL, so take this as a layman's opinion.
Subbu
On 23 April 2010 02:44, casimiro barreto casimiro.barreto@gmail.com wrote:
2010/4/22 Stephen Pair stephen@pairhome.net
It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows). Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software. I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
They have monopoly over platform (iPhone and iPad) and until other tablets reach market they have monopoly over tablet market.
The iPhone is their platform, they have every right to restrict it in any way they want. As long as there a viable alternatives (Android, Blackberry, Windows), they do not have a monopoly. Nothing is forcing you or me to buy into that platform or have anything to do with it. And, there are plenty of alternatives coming to market for touch tablets.
Suppose Job's idea flourishes and Microsoft decides next version of Windows will load applications via MicrosoftStore only and that they decide which applications are fit for Windows and which aren't and, more than that, what content is appropriate for Microsoft attendance and what is not (like well... no P2P, no Flash, multimedia only via ... you got the picture).
Well, I would say that the idea already is flourishing and I would be surprised if Microsoft didn't copy it.
Suppose everybody let this frog go down our throats and Jobs think: "well, it would be nice if all MacOS X applications could only be loaded through AppleStore..."
This is a very likely possibility...I think there are a lot of people that are so paranoid about viruses, identity theft, malware and the like that they would welcome such systems. In fact, I believe Google recognizes this and the ChromeOS and its security model is evidence of that fact. My own parents were so scared to death about identity theft that they wanted me to setup a dedicated Linux system for them that they could use exclusively for their online banking activities. They wanted Linux because they knew it wasn't the target of so many viruses, keyboard loggers and botnets like Windows.
The trouble with the iPhone/iPad marketing model goes far beyond Apple controlling things that can crash iPhone/iPad. It means that us, as developers, have to beg blessings to have the applications we develop available for a given platform; that we submit ourselves to the scrutiny of someone else than the customers or each country legal system and even so, "platform god" is free to decide that your application is not "appropriate" to his platform anymore and just throw you out of market.
But it is really worse than that because, if your application let you upload something "filth" like Kama Sutra (wtf) then both your application and content can be banished from god's own store. Btw, Bukovisky works were banished from AppleStore (among many other authors).
But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... yeah I think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem.
I view Apple as a trusted third party in a trust network. Unfortunately, they are just about the only trusted third party for native applications. That needs to change, and I believe it will change (whether Apple likes it or not). Such third parties that review and certify applications will become increasingly important. As a software publisher myself and someone that has never (to my knowledge) had any real problems with viruses and malware, I find myself increasingly reluctant to install any software that someone (a trusted third party) hasn't thoroughly vetted for any malicious payloads...it's simply too risky not to take such precautions. I wish it weren't the case, but it is the reality in which we find ourselves.
What we desperately need are operating systems and languages that give first class treatment to these issues of security and that democratize these kinds of trusted third parties (the AppStore is a good idea, but there needs to be hundreds of them, not one or a few).
- Stephen
On 23 April 2010 06:52, stephen@pairhome.net stephen@pairhome.net wrote:
On 23 April 2010 02:44, casimiro barreto casimiro.barreto@gmail.com wrote:
2010/4/22 Stephen Pair stephen@pairhome.net
It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows). Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software. I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
They have monopoly over platform (iPhone and iPad) and until other tablets reach market they have monopoly over tablet market.
The iPhone is their platform, they have every right to restrict it in any way they want. As long as there a viable alternatives (Android, Blackberry, Windows), they do not have a monopoly. Nothing is forcing you or me to buy into that platform or have anything to do with it. And, there are plenty of alternatives coming to market for touch tablets.
Suppose Job's idea flourishes and Microsoft decides next version of Windows will load applications via MicrosoftStore only and that they decide which applications are fit for Windows and which aren't and, more than that, what content is appropriate for Microsoft attendance and what is not (like well... no P2P, no Flash, multimedia only via ... you got the picture).
Well, I would say that the idea already is flourishing and I would be surprised if Microsoft didn't copy it.
Suppose everybody let this frog go down our throats and Jobs think: "well, it would be nice if all MacOS X applications could only be loaded through AppleStore..."
This is a very likely possibility...I think there are a lot of people that are so paranoid about viruses, identity theft, malware and the like that they would welcome such systems. In fact, I believe Google recognizes this and the ChromeOS and its security model is evidence of that fact. My own parents were so scared to death about identity theft that they wanted me to setup a dedicated Linux system for them that they could use exclusively for their online banking activities. They wanted Linux because they knew it wasn't the target of so many viruses, keyboard loggers and botnets like Windows.
The trouble with the iPhone/iPad marketing model goes far beyond Apple controlling things that can crash iPhone/iPad. It means that us, as developers, have to beg blessings to have the applications we develop available for a given platform; that we submit ourselves to the scrutiny of someone else than the customers or each country legal system and even so, "platform god" is free to decide that your application is not "appropriate" to his platform anymore and just throw you out of market.
But it is really worse than that because, if your application let you upload something "filth" like Kama Sutra (wtf) then both your application and content can be banished from god's own store. Btw, Bukovisky works were banished from AppleStore (among many other authors).
But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... yeah I think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem.
I view Apple as a trusted third party in a trust network. Unfortunately, they are just about the only trusted third party for native applications. That needs to change, and I believe it will change (whether Apple likes it or not). Such third parties that review and certify applications will become increasingly important. As a software publisher myself and someone that has never (to my knowledge) had any real problems with viruses and malware, I find myself increasingly reluctant to install any software that someone (a trusted third party) hasn't thoroughly vetted for any malicious payloads...it's simply too risky not to take such precautions. I wish it weren't the case, but it is the reality in which we find ourselves.
What we desperately need are operating systems and languages that give first class treatment to these issues of security and that democratize these kinds of trusted third parties (the AppStore is a good idea, but there needs to be hundreds of them, not one or a few).
Stephen, this is a valid and objective view of security issues, which Apple seems wants to solve. Indeed, i could imagine, that they physically unable to verify every piece of software which people submitting to their store and therefore putting such barriers, like 'no downloadable 3rd party content and no interpreters'. But AFAIK, there are a long existed measures for it, like signed & verified security certificates and so on. So, why they not using such systems in a first place, why they manually reviewing every app instead? As long as content comes from a verified & trusted provider, there is no point to enforce the rules like using only C++ or Javascript in their product. If all content is properly digitally signed, then even in case of problems, they will know who is responsible for it, and therefore could take a countermeasures. But instead, their way of handling the stuff got stuck somewhere in the middle of 90's.
- Stephen
On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:
But AFAIK, there are a long existed measures for it, like signed & verified security certificates and so on. So, why they not using such systems in a first place, why they manually reviewing every app instead? As long as content comes from a verified & trusted provider, there is no point to enforce the rules like using only C++ or Javascript in their product. If all content is properly digitally signed, then even in case of problems, they will know who is responsible for it, and therefore could take a countermeasures. But instead, their way of handling the stuff got stuck somewhere in the middle of 90's.
I agree with this...they certainly could have pushed the state of the art further in this regard. They probably chose a less ambitious approach to make sure they could ship something rather than bite off more than they could chew. In any case I expect better approaches will materialize as competitors catch up with Apple (and maybe Apple themselves will improve as people make their dissatisfaction known and those competitors come up with better solutions).
- Stephen
stephen@pairhome.net wrote:
I agree with this...they certainly could have pushed the state of the art further in this regard. They probably chose a less ambitious approach to make sure they could ship something rather than bite off more than they could chew. In any case I expect better approaches will materialize as competitors catch up with Apple (and maybe Apple themselves will improve as people make their dissatisfaction known and those competitors come up with better solutions).
Jobs' goal is to "change the world"... that means that everyone has to learn to use the Cocoa libs directly while programming them using a Mac.
It really IS quite simple, once you understand his mindset:
when Toy Story first came out and he was hailed as the great new Hollywood billionaire, he interviewed with a major news organization and all he wanted to talk about was NeXT, which was barely even a software product by that time.
Lawson
casimiro barreto casimiro.barreto@gmail.com writes:
Suppose Job's idea flourishes and Microsoft decides next version of Windows will load applications via MicrosoftStore only and that they decide which applications are fit for Windows and which aren't and, more than that, what content is appropriate for Microsoft attendance and what is not (like well... no P2P, no Flash, multimedia only via ... you got the picture).
You are damn right.
The trouble with the iPhone/iPad marketing model goes far beyond Apple controlling things that can crash iPhone/iPad. It means that us, as developers, have to beg blessings to have the applications we develop available for a given platform; that we submit ourselves to the scrutiny of someone else than the customers or each country legal system and even so, "platform god" is free to decide that your application is not "appropriate" to his platform anymore and just throw you out of market.
Exactly.
But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... yeah I think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem.
Again I agree fully.
On 4/23/10 9:21 AM, "Friedrich Dominicus" frido@q-software-solutions.de wrote:
But it goes beyond: as was discovered, Apple have ways of remotely nuking iPhones and iPads (OS feature). Then, according to license, if you keep "unsuitable content" on your device you're prone to have it nuked. So... yeah I think iPhone/iPad market model is a big problem.
It's ironic Apple once do his famous 1984 add...
Who is Big Brother now ?
Edgar
Who needs freedom, anyway? ~.~
This thread is pretty much only bike-shedding by now. Can we get back to something productive, please? Like, uh, documentation maybe? Coding? :)
- Bert -
Stephen Pair stephen@pairhome.net writes:
It's hard to argue that Apple is a monopoly when they have ~7% of the PC market and there are 3 significant competing platforms in the smartphone market (RIM, Android, and Windows). Now, I'm not defending Apple's stance on alternate languages, but I do think these decisions are based mostly on engineering compromises in an effort to constrain the problems they will face as they evolve the hardware and software. I mean, Objective-C itself is just about the epitome of a language born out of engineering compromise (an early attempt to get a Smalltalk inspired OO system running in a C based environment).
It's a much simpler problem if they only have to worry about breaking Objective-C and web apps all using official, documented and published APIs moving forward than if they have to worry about a mixed bag of apps all using various idiosyncratic technologies accessing undocumented APIs.
What an argument. They's had done a much better job to have one "useful and official API" with support. But Apple goes further, they prohibit every competition on apple os X. E.g just try to not use the Apple gcc for some work even on Mac OS X. You will get cauhgt while getting into exceptions and that's very soon you encounter that.
I do not have troubles at all with Objective-C but one. It's one platform language, and you can not use much let's say in Gnustep and/or elswwhere. And there is but one IDE for it... So I know of many Smalltalks which do work on at least three different platforms and I surely would like to use this APIs on IPhone or whatever also.
As for the
AppStore, it's a practical solution to the problem of viruses and malware (there is certainly demand for computers that just work, where viruses and malware are not an issue...the virus problem in Windows has been quite successful in fostering an appetite for that).
C as practical solution for not having viruses? or what do you mean with this?
I don't mean to come across sounding like an Apple apologist, but the arguments here seem to be very one sided. I simply want to express an alternative view.
Apple has decided they do not want competion, so that's the one and only conclusion one can draw. People should use their tools and nothing else. Now tell anything about vendor-lockin for MS. Compared with that is Microsoft an OSS corporatin...
Of course, having said all of this, I would still like to be able to use Smalltalk to write apps for my iPhone.
Apple should not bother about the implemenntation language nor the content. It seems they are doing both, and so they definitly are the bad guys this time. I hope they get put into the ground for that.
Friedrich
Does this change the status of Scratch on iphone any?
http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/
Lawson
Well I was hoping to have a few more days to settle things.
The Smalltalk community should take a deep bow and thank Alan Kay for spending many hours talking to the highest level of people at Apple about the importance of the iPad as a platform to teach computational theory to people of all ages.
So how does this all sort out? Well I don't know, nothing has officially changed, yet...
But I'm at WWDC this week, I did talk to the manager of the App Store (they were expecting me) and I do have an appointment with Apple next week to discuss the "Unless otherwise approved by Apple in writing"
Once that happens I will let everyone know the outcome, Apple is working what the approval process is, and I think the Smalltalk & Scratch community will be the first players in the door for Apple's embracing of interpreted languages for educational purposes on the iPad.
I must publicly thank the Smalltalk and Scratch communities for being patient and polite in waiting for the issue to resolve itself, and true thanks should be directed to Alan for his behind the scenes efforts in ensuring the Computer Science community has equal footing with the language arts & music departments for apps on the iPad.
I caution everyone that we're not there yet, but let's see what happens next week, so don't open the champaign bottles yet.
On 2010-06-10, at 7:40 PM, Lawson English wrote:
Does this change the status of Scratch on iphone any?
http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/
Lawson
-- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
John,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:43 AM, John M McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com wrote:
The Smalltalk community should take a deep bow and thank Alan Kay for spending many hours talking to the highest level of people at Apple about the importance of the iPad as a platform to teach computational theory to people of all ages.
... and thank *you*.
Best,
Michael
Thanks John and Alan for your efforts.
Noury On 11 juin 2010, at 07:43, John M McIntosh wrote:
Well I was hoping to have a few more days to settle things.
The Smalltalk community should take a deep bow and thank Alan Kay for spending many hours talking to the highest level of people at Apple about the importance of the iPad as a platform to teach computational theory to people of all ages.
So how does this all sort out? Well I don't know, nothing has officially changed, yet...
But I'm at WWDC this week, I did talk to the manager of the App Store (they were expecting me) and I do have an appointment with Apple next week to discuss the "Unless otherwise approved by Apple in writing"
Once that happens I will let everyone know the outcome, Apple is working what the approval process is, and I think the Smalltalk & Scratch community will be the first players in the door for Apple's embracing of interpreted languages for educational purposes on the iPad.
I must publicly thank the Smalltalk and Scratch communities for being patient and polite in waiting for the issue to resolve itself, and true thanks should be directed to Alan for his behind the scenes efforts in ensuring the Computer Science community has equal footing with the language arts & music departments for apps on the iPad.
I caution everyone that we're not there yet, but let's see what happens next week, so don't open the champaign bottles yet.
On 2010-06-10, at 7:40 PM, Lawson English wrote:
Does this change the status of Scratch on iphone any?
http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/
Lawson
--
John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Thank you Alan&John for your great job ! I will maybe buy an ipad and i would love to do some Squeak/Pharo activities in this platform.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:43 PM, John M McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com wrote:
Well I was hoping to have a few more days to settle things.
The Smalltalk community should take a deep bow and thank Alan Kay for spending many hours talking to the highest level of people at Apple about the importance of the iPad as a platform to teach computational theory to people of all ages.
So how does this all sort out? Well I don't know, nothing has officially changed, yet...
But I'm at WWDC this week, I did talk to the manager of the App Store (they were expecting me) and I do have an appointment with Apple next week to discuss the "Unless otherwise approved by Apple in writing"
Once that happens I will let everyone know the outcome, Apple is working what the approval process is, and I think the Smalltalk & Scratch community will be the first players in the door for Apple's embracing of interpreted languages for educational purposes on the iPad.
I must publicly thank the Smalltalk and Scratch communities for being patient and polite in waiting for the issue to resolve itself, and true thanks should be directed to Alan for his behind the scenes efforts in ensuring the Computer Science community has equal footing with the language arts & music departments for apps on the iPad.
I caution everyone that we're not there yet, but let's see what happens next week, so don't open the champaign bottles yet.
On 2010-06-10, at 7:40 PM, Lawson English wrote:
Does this change the status of Scratch on iphone any?
http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/
Lawson
--
John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
Esug-list mailing list Esug-list@lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
On 6/11/10 2:43 AM, "John M McIntosh" johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com wrote:
Well I was hoping to have a few more days to settle things.
The Smalltalk community should take a deep bow and thank Alan Kay for spending many hours talking to the highest level of people at Apple about the importance of the iPad as a platform to teach computational theory to people of all ages.
So how does this all sort out? Well I don't know, nothing has officially changed, yet...
But I'm at WWDC this week, I did talk to the manager of the App Store (they were expecting me) and I do have an appointment with Apple next week to discuss the "Unless otherwise approved by Apple in writing"
Once that happens I will let everyone know the outcome, Apple is working what the approval process is, and I think the Smalltalk & Scratch community will be the first players in the door for Apple's embracing of interpreted languages for educational purposes on the iPad.
I must publicly thank the Smalltalk and Scratch communities for being patient and polite in waiting for the issue to resolve itself, and true thanks should be directed to Alan for his behind the scenes efforts in ensuring the Computer Science community has equal footing with the language arts & music departments for apps on the iPad.
I caution everyone that we're not there yet, but let's see what happens next week, so don't open the champaign bottles yet.
Alan and you John deserves our deep gratitude . I cross my fingers waiting a iPad VM and Squeak going into it. Very , very thanks.
Edgar
Wow. I don't often read an email message that makes my heart race. Exciting news, thank you for your extraordinary efforts.
And Alan Kay continues to move the world forward.
- Steve
On Jun 11, 2010, at 12:43 AM, John M McIntosh <johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com
wrote:
Well I was hoping to have a few more days to settle things.
The Smalltalk community should take a deep bow and thank Alan Kay for spending many hours talking to the highest level of people at Apple about the importance of the iPad as a platform to teach computational theory to people of all ages.
So how does this all sort out? Well I don't know, nothing has officially changed, yet...
But I'm at WWDC this week, I did talk to the manager of the App Store (they were expecting me) and I do have an appointment with Apple next week to discuss the "Unless otherwise approved by Apple in writing"
Once that happens I will let everyone know the outcome, Apple is working what the approval process is, and I think the Smalltalk & Scratch community will be the first players in the door for Apple's embracing of interpreted languages for educational purposes on the iPad.
I must publicly thank the Smalltalk and Scratch communities for being patient and polite in waiting for the issue to resolve itself, and true thanks should be directed to Alan for his behind the scenes efforts in ensuring the Computer Science community has equal footing with the language arts & music departments for apps on the iPad.
I caution everyone that we're not there yet, but let's see what happens next week, so don't open the champaign bottles yet.
On 2010-06-10, at 7:40 PM, Lawson English wrote:
Does this change the status of Scratch on iphone any?
http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/
Lawson
--
===
John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http:// www.smalltalkconsulting.com === === =====================================================================
On 11.06.2010, at 07:43, John M McIntosh wrote:
Well I was hoping to have a few more days to settle things.
The Smalltalk community should take a deep bow and thank Alan Kay for spending many hours talking to the highest level of people at Apple about the importance of the iPad as a platform to teach computational theory to people of all ages.
So how does this all sort out? Well I don't know, nothing has officially changed, yet...
But I'm at WWDC this week, I did talk to the manager of the App Store (they were expecting me) and I do have an appointment with Apple next week to discuss the "Unless otherwise approved by Apple in writing"
Once that happens I will let everyone know the outcome, Apple is working what the approval process is, and I think the Smalltalk & Scratch community will be the first players in the door for Apple's embracing of interpreted languages for educational purposes on the iPad.
I must publicly thank the Smalltalk and Scratch communities for being patient and polite in waiting for the issue to resolve itself, and true thanks should be directed to Alan for his behind the scenes efforts in ensuring the Computer Science community has equal footing with the language arts & music departments for apps on the iPad.
Thanks to you, too! :)
I caution everyone that we're not there yet, but let's see what happens next week, so don't open the champaign bottles yet.
Well, the Apple approval would only remove one obstacle. The bigger issue is actually making a suitable touch interface for either Etoys or Scratch. I don't think Alan had these concrete apps in mind, but rather the general ability to run this kind of software.
Case in point: I got Etoys running on the iPad, using John's VM, slightly modified to allow multi-touch etc. Works in Morphic, which always supported multiple hands. But while it does work, it sill feels like a desktop app. Plus it drains the battery so fast it's not funny.
We're going to have to work on that eventually, though the main motivation would be the planned OLPC tablet.
- Bert -
On 2010-06-10, at 7:40 PM, Lawson English wrote:
Does this change the status of Scratch on iphone any?
http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/
Lawson
--
John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Lawson English lenglish5@cox.net wrote:
Does this change the status of Scratch on iphone any? http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/
it *seems* that (a) embedded scripting is OK without asking for permission, (b) interpreters are OK if you ask Apple for their consent.
This *might* work ...
Best,
Michael
Michael Haupt a écrit :
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Lawson English lenglish5@cox.net wrote:
Does this change the status of Scratch on iphone any? http://www.appleoutsider.com/2010/06/10/hello-lua/
it *seems* that (a) embedded scripting is OK without asking for permission, (b) interpreters are OK if you ask Apple for their consent.
This really looks ridiculous. Asking Mama the permission... Even Microsoft did not go that far. This is unsane.
Developer could play with the market and talk/use open alternative.
http://www.archos.com/products/imt/archos_5it/applis.html
Hilaire
Hilaire,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Hilaire Fernandes hilaire.fernandes@gmail.com wrote:
This really looks ridiculous. Asking Mama the permission... Even Microsoft did not go that far. This is unsane.
Apple already has gone this far, only without the written permission thing ... ever heard of the App Store? ;-)
Best,
Michael
2010/6/11 Hilaire Fernandes hilaire.fernandes@gmail.com:
This really looks ridiculous. Asking Mama the permission... Even Microsoft did not go that far. This is unsane.
Developer could play with the market and talk/use open alternative.
BIG +1
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andreas Raab -
Bert Freudenberg -
Casey Ransberger -
casimiro barreto -
Casimiro de Almeida Barreto
-
Darius Clarke -
David Corking -
Edgar J. De Cleene -
Eliot Miranda -
Friedrich Dominicus -
Germán Arduino -
Hilaire Fernandes -
Hilaire Fernandes -
Igor Stasenko -
John M McIntosh -
Josh Gargus -
K. K. Subramaniam -
karl ramberg -
Lawson English -
Michael Haupt -
Noury Bouraqadi -
Phil (list) -
Richard Durr -
Serge Stinckwich -
stephane ducasse -
stephane ducasse -
Stephen Pair -
stephen＠pairhome.net
-
Steve Wessels -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Yoshiki Ohshima