5 ms·

The iPad and iPhone are more closed, more hostile to tinkerers, more hostile to adventurous users, than most other similar devices. This is a bad thing.

The iPad and iPhone are more closed, more hostile to tinkerers, more hostile to adventurous users, than most other similar devices. This is a bad thing. This would be a bad thing if it were true. It is not. Before iPhone I was not even considering coding something for mobile device. When iPhone SDK came out I was not only considering, I did want to do it. Even more so with iPad. Open Source software has made dramatic improvements in the landscape for kids learning technology today. Apple is fighting those improvements, and they should be called out for that bad behavior. What a bullshit. First, Apple adds a lot to open source. Remember, what phone had useable web browser before iPhone? Right… What's the most popular engine for mobile devices? Correct, WebKit. We talk about those web apps for mobile devices today, where they became first available? Where did those nice CSS transforms, transitions and animations first appear? Would you care to go and see who are the editors http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-2d-transforms/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-2d-transforms/, http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/, http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-animations/ http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-animations/ Evil Apple. I guess their work on WebKit, LLVM, Grand Central Dispatch (libdispatch), OpenCL, etc. is somehow "fighting the improvements" made by OSS? Really? Apple is behaving in ways that are bad for developers, and bad for kids who might become hackers. Yes. Like including free X-Code with every single copy of OS X. You don't even have to download it: it is there on the DVD. That sure does something horrible for developers and kids who might become hackers. People, I understand that some of you may not like Apple for one reason or other, but please, stop talking nonsense.

mscarborough 17y ago
Also, there exists plenty of constructive criticism by people who like Apple just fine, and for one reason or another, still hold an opinion that runs contrary to the company line. Reasonable people can disagree, it's not just a matter of 'talking nonsense'. FTA (full paragraph for context): "And, App Store aside — which, yes, requires access to a Mac and a $99/year developer account — what about the iPad and iPhone as web clients? There are no limits imposed by Apple on web apps targeting iPhone OS devices. When I learned to program in the 1980s with BASIC, the interface of our programs was monospaced (and on some machines, all-caps) text. Just text. If we had color it was limited to 16 shades." A lot could be said about Xcode within your core offering, but requiring $100 to submit a program to the 'open' platform. I don't really have an opinion though. That said, how could anyone claim with a straight face that 'There are no limits imposed by Apple on web apps targeting iPhone OS devices.'? Or even that in 2010, the number of colors a completely different host OS allowed you to use in 1980 could serve as an analogy for technology 30 years into the future? Very publicly Apple has rejected apps for duplicating 'core functionality'. More privately, they have given application developers runarounds based on fairly specious reasoning and within a poor framework for supporting the little dev shops that are supposedly so empowered by this new platform. HN contributors have been exposed to and have discussed these issues repeatedly.
- bbatsell 17y ago
  > That said, how could anyone claim with a straight face that 'There are no limits imposed by Apple on web apps targeting iPhone OS devices.' He very clearly says "web apps". iPhone OS fully supports HTML5 web applications that can be installed to SpringBoard (the application launcher) alongside every other app from the App Store. They can run offline, with full HTML5 local database support — they're treated as first-class citizens by the OS.
larrywright 17y ago
>> Yes. Like including free X-Code with every single copy of OS X. You don't even have to download it: it is there on the DVD. Microsoft, since at least Windows XP (and perhaps before, I'm too lazy to look), hasn't shipped a programming language with their operating system. Apple ships what, 6 or 7? Python, Ruby, Perl, C, AppleScript, and probably a few others. Those don't require the $99 developer license at all. Apple is the only hacker-friendly PC and OS manufacturer remaining.
- SwellJoe 17y ago
  Apple is the only hacker-friendly PC and OS manufacturer remaining. Every Linux distribution includes dozens of programming languages.
  - larrywright 17y ago
    Please note that I said "PC and OS manufacturer". As awesome as I think Linux is, it's not mainstream on the desktop yet. Of all the laptops/desktops that have a likelihood of reaching the kinds of people we're talking about here, Apple is the only one that is hacker friendly.
- nex3 17y ago
  Windows XP comes with at least VBScript and JScript ready-to-use for scripting.
  - larrywright 17y ago
    I'll concede that, but scripting != developing your own application from scratch.
  - larrywright 17y ago
    I'll concede that, but scripting != developing your own application from scratch.
- sriramk 17y ago
  Windows ships with the .NET framework which has the C# and VB compilers (and may have others - I'm not sure). This is not counting things like Powershell, Javascript, VBScript (all command line versions). For developer tools, VS Express has been free for over 5 years.
SwellJoe 17y ago
Before iPhone I was not even considering coding something for mobile device. When iPhone SDK came out I was not only considering, I did want to do it. Even more so with iPad. This tells us that it is a really good platform, and that you enjoy it. It doesn't tell us anything about openness. I agree that iPhone and iPad are awesome devices. Apple makes beautiful computers that mostly work very well. I'm not arguing in any way about the quality, or enjoyability, of Apple products. At risk of once again distracting from the important point I'm trying to make (which seems to be really easy for folks to do; since nearly every criticism of my comments takes off in a different direction, unrelated to the very real problems with Apples decision to be a gatekeeper for their devices), I will note that developing for iPhone is a little bit old-fashioned. Objective C is a good language for its age, and I happen to like C...but compared to more modern languages (even modern Java found on Android devices), there's a bit more fiddly bits than I like. The end results can be wonderful, but technically, there's some definite trade offs in using a language like Objective C, even with a really well thought out API. Remember, what phone had useable web browser before iPhone? Right… What's the most popular engine for mobile devices? Correct, WebKit. Which was an Open Source library that had been in development for years before Apple got involved and forked it and renamed it WebKit. Yes, Apple did wonderful things with WebKit, but you're just parroting the company line if you believe that the ability to make web apps that work on iPhone is the same as an open device. Like including free X-Code with every single copy of OS X. Except those copies of OS X that come on the iPhone and iPad. People, I understand that some of you may not like Apple for one reason or other, but please, stop talking nonsense. My "one reason or other" is not mysterious. I have not minced words about my problems with Apple. I don't believe you've actually answered the point of my complaints, you've merely parroted the company line. If you agree with Apple, and love their products so much that you're willing to live with those limitations, that's fine. My only point is that you shouldn't call out a bunch of other stuff Apple does, that may be positive or neutral, as evidence that the closed nature of the iPhone/iPad ecosystem is bad for tinkerers and hackers and kids that might become hackers. And, you really shouldn't make this into a false dichotomy, as Gruber tries to do; you can have an awesome device that is also open. Apple has merely opted not to do so. The good news is that the latest round of Android devices are as good as the iPhone, and the sales rate of Android phones indicates that iPhone will lose the war in a couple of years, or less, assuming things continue as they have been. It's almost...poetic. I believe openness tends to win, in the end, because its benefits are just too great to ignore. Thus, I'll humbly make a prediction: Apple has shot themselves in the foot, once again, by being a closed platform. If they don't open up, they will gradually lose ground to Android. Call it nonsense all you want, but I think cultural decisions of important companies can shape the world...and I believe Apple has been making cultural decisions that are a net negative with regard to the iPhone and iPad.

mscarborough 17y ago

Also, there exists plenty of constructive criticism by people who like Apple just fine, and for one reason or another, still hold an opinion that runs contrary to the company line. Reasonable people can disagree, it's not just a matter of 'talking nonsense'. FTA (full paragraph for context): "And, App Store aside — which, yes, requires access to a Mac and a $99/year developer account — what about the iPad and iPhone as web clients? There are no limits imposed by Apple on web apps targeting iPhone OS devices. When I learned to program in the 1980s with BASIC, the interface of our programs was monospaced (and on some machines, all-caps) text. Just text. If we had color it was limited to 16 shades." A lot could be said about Xcode within your core offering, but requiring $100 to submit a program to the 'open' platform. I don't really have an opinion though. That said, how could anyone claim with a straight face that 'There are no limits imposed by Apple on web apps targeting iPhone OS devices.'? Or even that in 2010, the number of colors a completely different host OS allowed you to use in 1980 could serve as an analogy for technology 30 years into the future? Very publicly Apple has rejected apps for duplicating 'core functionality'. More privately, they have given application developers runarounds based on fairly specious reasoning and within a poor framework for supporting the little dev shops that are supposedly so empowered by this new platform. HN contributors have been exposed to and have discussed these issues repeatedly.

bbatsell 17y ago
> That said, how could anyone claim with a straight face that 'There are no limits imposed by Apple on web apps targeting iPhone OS devices.' He very clearly says "web apps". iPhone OS fully supports HTML5 web applications that can be installed to SpringBoard (the application launcher) alongside every other app from the App Store. They can run offline, with full HTML5 local database support — they're treated as first-class citizens by the OS.

larrywright 17y ago

>> Yes. Like including free X-Code with every single copy of OS X. You don't even have to download it: it is there on the DVD. Microsoft, since at least Windows XP (and perhaps before, I'm too lazy to look), hasn't shipped a programming language with their operating system. Apple ships what, 6 or 7? Python, Ruby, Perl, C, AppleScript, and probably a few others. Those don't require the $99 developer license at all. Apple is the only hacker-friendly PC and OS manufacturer remaining.

SwellJoe 17y ago
Apple is the only hacker-friendly PC and OS manufacturer remaining. Every Linux distribution includes dozens of programming languages.
- larrywright 17y ago
  Please note that I said "PC and OS manufacturer". As awesome as I think Linux is, it's not mainstream on the desktop yet. Of all the laptops/desktops that have a likelihood of reaching the kinds of people we're talking about here, Apple is the only one that is hacker friendly.
nex3 17y ago
Windows XP comes with at least VBScript and JScript ready-to-use for scripting.
- larrywright 17y ago
  I'll concede that, but scripting != developing your own application from scratch.
- larrywright 17y ago
  I'll concede that, but scripting != developing your own application from scratch.
sriramk 17y ago
Windows ships with the .NET framework which has the C# and VB compilers (and may have others - I'm not sure). This is not counting things like Powershell, Javascript, VBScript (all command line versions). For developer tools, VS Express has been free for over 5 years.

SwellJoe 17y ago

Before iPhone I was not even considering coding something for mobile device. When iPhone SDK came out I was not only considering, I did want to do it. Even more so with iPad. This tells us that it is a really good platform, and that you enjoy it. It doesn't tell us anything about openness. I agree that iPhone and iPad are awesome devices. Apple makes beautiful computers that mostly work very well. I'm not arguing in any way about the quality, or enjoyability, of Apple products. At risk of once again distracting from the important point I'm trying to make (which seems to be really easy for folks to do; since nearly every criticism of my comments takes off in a different direction, unrelated to the very real problems with Apples decision to be a gatekeeper for their devices), I will note that developing for iPhone is a little bit old-fashioned. Objective C is a good language for its age, and I happen to like C...but compared to more modern languages (even modern Java found on Android devices), there's a bit more fiddly bits than I like. The end results can be wonderful, but technically, there's some definite trade offs in using a language like Objective C, even with a really well thought out API. Remember, what phone had useable web browser before iPhone? Right… What's the most popular engine for mobile devices? Correct, WebKit. Which was an Open Source library that had been in development for years before Apple got involved and forked it and renamed it WebKit. Yes, Apple did wonderful things with WebKit, but you're just parroting the company line if you believe that the ability to make web apps that work on iPhone is the same as an open device. Like including free X-Code with every single copy of OS X. Except those copies of OS X that come on the iPhone and iPad. People, I understand that some of you may not like Apple for one reason or other, but please, stop talking nonsense. My "one reason or other" is not mysterious. I have not minced words about my problems with Apple. I don't believe you've actually answered the point of my complaints, you've merely parroted the company line. If you agree with Apple, and love their products so much that you're willing to live with those limitations, that's fine. My only point is that you shouldn't call out a bunch of other stuff Apple does, that may be positive or neutral, as evidence that the closed nature of the iPhone/iPad ecosystem is bad for tinkerers and hackers and kids that might become hackers. And, you really shouldn't make this into a false dichotomy, as Gruber tries to do; you can have an awesome device that is also open. Apple has merely opted not to do so. The good news is that the latest round of Android devices are as good as the iPhone, and the sales rate of Android phones indicates that iPhone will lose the war in a couple of years, or less, assuming things continue as they have been. It's almost...poetic. I believe openness tends to win, in the end, because its benefits are just too great to ignore. Thus, I'll humbly make a prediction: Apple has shot themselves in the foot, once again, by being a closed platform. If they don't open up, they will gradually lose ground to Android. Call it nonsense all you want, but I think cultural decisions of important companies can shape the world...and I believe Apple has been making cultural decisions that are a net negative with regard to the iPhone and iPad.