3 ms·

Point 1 is talking about websites / web applications. Point 5 is talking about native apps. Two different domains entirely. With point 1, if developers are goi

by danudey 17y ago

Point 1 is talking about websites / web applications. Point 5 is talking about native apps. Two different domains entirely. With point 1, if developers are going to make a website, and they ditch flash, their work would work everywhere well (iPhone/iPad/iPod, Android, WebOS, Symbian, and Blackberry OS 6, as well as on the desktop). They wouldn't be limited to the platforms Adobe decides to support (or decides to support well). With point 2, if you're going to make a native app for the iPhone, make one for the iPhone. Don't make one with Flash, which may not get around to supporting things like GameCenter, or multitasking, or any of the other hundreds of things Apple adds in new releases. Choosing Flash for either one makes a substandard experience compared to the other options available.

cninja 17y ago
I do understand your point about using the right tool for the right job, however Apple is arguing both sides. Either cross platform standards are a good thing, or platform specific features are a good thing. While web applications and native applications are different domains, they are not different enough to mean different reasoning can be used. An end user doesn't really care if something is built using HTML5, flash, or compiled natively. They just care that it looks cool and does cool things.
- pohl 17y ago
  Either cross platform standards are a good thing, or platform specific features are a good thing. This is the classic fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses of the 2nd order, a.k.a. "a false dichotomy" or "the fallacy of the excluded middle". There is a third possibilty: that both are good, and that which is better depends upon the nature of the app one wants to create. This third missing case also happens to be the reality of the situation — there are tradeoffs, and one selects which is better according to the upsides that one desires versus the downsides one is willing to abide. (Surely you're not claiming that there are no tradeoffs between the native API and web technologies! I can think of several, not the least of which is the limited rate at which innovation can be brought to the web API.)
- btilly 17y ago
  Cross-platform standards are a good thing for Apple. Getting people to use Apple's platform specific features is a good thing for Apple. Apple does what is good for Apple. There is no contradiction. Remember, this is not an essay about why everyone else should support Apple's actions. It is an essay about why Apple thinks its actions are good for it.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    > It is an essay about why Apple thinks its actions are good for it. Hidden in that of course is the lack of concern for what's good for the consumer.
  - jimbokun 17y ago
    "Apple does what is good for Apple. There is no contradiction." I don't even think Jobs tried to hide this very well. It's pretty clear he is arguing from the perspective of what is best for Apple, and clearly and coherently explaining why.

by danudey 17y ago

cninja 17y ago

I do understand your point about using the right tool for the right job, however Apple is arguing both sides. Either cross platform standards are a good thing, or platform specific features are a good thing. While web applications and native applications are different domains, they are not different enough to mean different reasoning can be used. An end user doesn't really care if something is built using HTML5, flash, or compiled natively. They just care that it looks cool and does cool things.

pohl 17y ago
Either cross platform standards are a good thing, or platform specific features are a good thing. This is the classic fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses of the 2nd order, a.k.a. "a false dichotomy" or "the fallacy of the excluded middle". There is a third possibilty: that both are good, and that which is better depends upon the nature of the app one wants to create. This third missing case also happens to be the reality of the situation — there are tradeoffs, and one selects which is better according to the upsides that one desires versus the downsides one is willing to abide. (Surely you're not claiming that there are no tradeoffs between the native API and web technologies! I can think of several, not the least of which is the limited rate at which innovation can be brought to the web API.)
btilly 17y ago
Cross-platform standards are a good thing for Apple. Getting people to use Apple's platform specific features is a good thing for Apple. Apple does what is good for Apple. There is no contradiction. Remember, this is not an essay about why everyone else should support Apple's actions. It is an essay about why Apple thinks its actions are good for it.
- elblanco 17y ago
  > It is an essay about why Apple thinks its actions are good for it. Hidden in that of course is the lack of concern for what's good for the consumer.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  "Apple does what is good for Apple. There is no contradiction." I don't even think Jobs tried to hide this very well. It's pretty clear he is arguing from the perspective of what is best for Apple, and clearly and coherently explaining why.