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.