A rational perspective on Jobs

Has Steve Jobs gone mad?
[Via Brainstorm Tech]

Or is he trying to ensure that Apple apps continue to “just work?” A guide to the latest flap

Photo: gdgt

The hottest topic in tech these days — and the lead item all weekend in Techmeme — is an obscure clause in Apple’s (AAPL) latest Developer Program License Agreement, the document programmers must conform to if they want to be part of the bonanza that is the iTunes App Store (185,000 apps and counting).

It’s a discussion that echoes complaints about Apple’s essential controlling nature that date back a quarter century to the original Mac and which have returned full-force with the release of the iPad — a device that has been called the Disneyland of Computers, and not in a nice way.

Its outcome could determine whether Apple holds on to the dominant position in smartphone computing it has achieved with the iPhone, or whether the history of Mac vs. PC — in which Microsoft (MSFT) seized control of the desktop and Apple was relegated to the role of a small (albeit highly profitable) also-ran — is about to repeat itself.

Apple didn’t mention the clause at the center of the debate — section 3.3.1 of iPhone OS 4.0 SDK — during its hour-long press preview of the new system software last Thursday, and the clause didn’t come up in the Q. & A. But before the day was out, Daring Fireball’s John Gruber, a blogger with close ties to the Apple developer community, had singled it out for closer examination and put his finger on what it means.

What 3.3.1 says is that to be approved for sale on the App Store, programs must be originally written in one of three approved computer languages (C, C++, and Objective-C). It explicitly prohibits apps created with so-called cross-platform interpreters or compilers.

[More]

And the comments are pretty rational also.

Technogeeks are not liberal nor conservative

by Naj ( Desired Hopes © )

My iPad as a tool
[Via Daily Kos]

Tech geeks love numbers. When discussing computers, they speak of gigabits and gigahertz, of RAM and ports. The more tech adept among them will even swap out the internals or write their own code. They are tinkerers extraordinaire, and are just as happy customizing their rigs as they are in using their machines for their intended purposes, be it work or pleasure.

Then there’s everyone else.

I became a Mac user because I got tired of cracking my machine open to deal with hardware, and I got tired of fighting my software to get any work done. My work needs are simple: a browser, a word processor, and sporadic use of office productivity software (covered by Microsoft Office and Apple iWorks). With Google Docs, I use less and less of my desktop apps. I love cloud-based computing.

I was a PC gamer, but the current generation of dedicated gaming consoles took care of that. My Xbox, despite being made by Microsoft, is stable, fast, and runs my games perfectly. How could a company that gave us Windows build such a great gaming platform?

Because it was a closed system.

[More]

Just to show that the liberal/conservative access does not affect the technogeek/regular person axis.>So the head of the Great Orange Satan talks about how great his iPad is for him. He mentions tech geeks and then talks about everyone else.
Then the comments start. Some try to create a liberal intersection with the perfidy that is Apple’s closed system, but they quickly just fell into geek views.

“We need to storm the Bastille because Apple prevents developers from doing whatever they want!” “If this was MS, there would be blood in the streets!” “The Xbox does the same thing and it makes a great gaming system.” “No, the Xbox is a steaming pile of dung.” “It’s the first gadget I find appealing.”‘Well, you are just stupid.” “Well, I ‘d rather be stupid than be such a pouty-face.” “I know you are but what am I?”  

Exactly the same discourse I have seen at tech sites, conservative sites, liberal sites, etc. about the iPad. Lots of people just HATE Apple now (mostly tech geeks). And lots of people just LOVE Apple (mostly regular people).

They both seem to forget that Apple provides tools. Some people really like the tools; others don’t. It is like getting all fired up discussing manual vs. automatic transmissions.

“A manual transmission gives the driver an intimate attachment to the engine.” “I can decide when to change gears instead of when the car company has decided for me.” “It works for me and is much easier to use.” “It costs so much more and does not provide any real benefit.” “Only an idiot would use something that is so complex that it can only be serviced in a shop instead of in a driveway.” “I do not have to do as much work to drive.” ‘Well, you are just stupid.” “Well, I ‘d rather be stupid than be such a pouty-face.” “I know you are but what am I?”

What percentage of cars have a manual transmission? Less than 8%..

SImilarly, I think Apple is gearing its tools for those who just want to use them, not tinker with them. It believes that in order to provide the best experience for its customers, it needs to put constraints on the Wild West of developers.

Creativity works best with constraints, And while Apple provides lots of them, it also provides a way to keep 70% of the revenues. So I expect they will do quite well as long as they continue to lead. If the creativity goes elsewhere because of inappropriate constraints, they will be in trouble.

Time will tell. But they have shown a predilection recently of actually responding to complaints by developers and finding a solution. So, they came up with the App store, something they were originally against. They will have multi-tasking, something they left out.

Both of these are things that developers were clamoring about, not customers. Perhaps Apple will do this again.

‘No different from the status quo’

by Paul Mannix

Quite Insane
[Via Eunomia]

This is quite insane. It’s like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections. ~Charles Krauthammer

Yes, I’d say that full-scale conventional bombardment and the wreckage of major cities with air strikes and shelling is comparable to community service, wouldn’t you? I often associate carpet bombing and working at a soup kitchen. There’s nothing “loopy” or “bizarre” about that comparison, is there?

There is some crazy thinking in this debate, and it is to be found among those who seem to think that a refusal to nuke Argentina in response to the highly improbable Argentinean sarin gas attack on the U.S. (or make up whatever scenario you like) is equivalent to lying down and dying. One need only look over the list of NPT signatories and consider which states have both the desire and the means even to launch such a strike. I doubt anyone can find a plausible candidate. Even if there were a state that might want to launch such an attack, when faced with massive conventional retaliation none of them would risk it.

[More]

One of my favorite conservative columnists puts it into perspective. There are really no instances where we would use nuclear weapons in a way that contravenes what Obama has done. Conventional retaliation would suffice.

Larsen ends with this:

After having spent decades dismissing the possibility of deterring “rogue” regimes, Krauthammer and his colleagues cannot stop talking about deterrence all of a sudden, but they aren’t willing to acknowledge that vast conventional military superiority is also a deterrent against attack. All that Obama has committed to with this review is that the overwhelming retaliation such an attacker would face would not include nuclear weapons. That isn’t saying much, and it is actually no different from the status quo.

Larsen remains one of the few columnists who does not change his position so he can remain in opposition to Obama. Too many other conservative pundits, longtime proponents of a policy, seem to change to being against it as soon as Obama is for it. Opposition is more important than consistency.