> Like, shouldn't he have had this already with some employee on the inside?
How is this e-mail chain in any way evidence that Apple has not had internal debate or that no one has the guts to disagree with Steve Jobs?
How is this e-mail chain in any way evidence that Apple has not had internal debate or that no one has the guts to disagree with Steve Jobs?
Apple has made a lot of really ethically questionable moves, and is being quite hypocritical in many cases. This is obvious to me, and others. So when someone on the outside brought this up, Steve Jobs responded in a way that almost seems like it's the first time he's having this debate. That's just my take on it.
Or do you really think that many at Apple had this same or similar kind of debate with Jobs, and then he's willing to publicly have it again with Tate? His arguments are just too weak and unpolished for it, and it's surprising he's responding to Tate at all if he's already deliberated it internally and settled on his position.
I'm willing to believe that as a possibility. As in physically possible. You don't find that at least a little surprising though? Really?
Selling people a product that will give them cancer and telling them it makes them look cool is an ethically questionable move. Restricting the programming languages that can be used to develop for your platform is not.
Umm.. Yeah. I've come to the conclusion that this debate isn't worth participating in anymore. People don't get the bullshit Apple is pulling or are willing to look past it because of the superb quality of the iDevices and the App Store gravy train. It's hard to explain it in a paragraph. And when you explain it in detail people don't listen. You get comments like the above. You get people saying "Flash sucks" when Flash has nothing to do with it. I just don't have the time anymore, sorry. Bury away.
Livelihoods? Or shots at a quick buck for relatively little work building on the back of someone else's invention?
Apple doesn't legally owe gold rush developers a livelihood, but the ethics are not so clear cut, especially when they pull a Facebook-like policy switch after people have already invested.
...but honestly, how many devs would've turned around and walked away if they had?
2) Apple changes section 3.3.1 in the developer agreement for OS 4.0.
3) You have to spend the time and possibly money to learn a new language if you want your application to work on OS 4.0, or forgo your previous investment of time and money. Most iPhone OS devices will be upgraded to 4.0 relatively quickly.
Legal? Probably. Justified from Apple's point of view? Likely. Reasonable, fair or ethical? That's pretty subjective.
See, this right here^^^ This is the key: why did you decline the offer from BigCorp? Only two reasons I can think of...
1. You were naive and thought you could make a quick buck with less work by developing for the iPhone platform without doing it the way Apple suggested you should.
2. You had the drive to strike out and make it on your own, BigCorp be damned!
If it's #1, you only have yourself to blame. If it's #2, you're not about to let something like 3.3.1 stand in your way...
Now he has to either train them too in Obj-C or recruit a new bunch of Obj-C developers.
To top it all off, he must stop improving his product and start rewriting it in Obj-C, while his competitor who started off with Obj-C doesn't have to. There was nothing in the previous version of the OS agreement to suggest that cross-compilation would somehow be banned in future versions. All because Steve Jobs, loves Obj-C. Now how isn't that screwing people's livelihood?
Take out the job offer from bigcorp from my example. You're still going to have to invest in hardware and probably ramp-up.
We absolutely do. You won't find a more ardent opponent of 3.3.1 than me. But that doesn't mean I accuse every person underneath Steve Jobs of kowtowing to his every whim without a whiff of disagreement, or claim that Jobs doesn't permit dissent based on absolutely zero evidence. I can disagree with and express opposition to a particular action of Apple's without making it into a personal vendetta.