[Esug-list] Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Talking to Steve
Jobs about Scratch.
casimiro.barreto at gmail.com
Thu Apr 22 23:44:20 UTC 2010
2010/4/22 Stephen Pair <stephen at 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
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
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
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
> 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2010/4/22 Hilaire Fernandes <hilaire at ofset.org>
>>> 2010/4/21 John M McIntosh <johnmci at 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.
>>> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev