Comment by jmatt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmatt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Apple is fascist. The iPhone specifically.

Microsoft in comparison looks like a beautiful tour de force of openness. Free (arguably) open CIL, languages, document format, IDE, documentation. No one DECIDES who can develop on windows mobile. Or for that matter most other SDKs. As for the cost, absolute worst case for an individual - about $1k a year to get an MSDN subscription.

Meanwhile 4000 devs are going to make ALL the applications that the masses could ever want on an iPhone. Why not just open it up for $100/$300? Heck, why isn't it free to push open source projects? Why isn't it free to push to your own iPhone? Why hasn't anyone asked Apple these questions? This is insane. If Microsoft tried something this crazy everyone would be in an uproar. This will give a huge advantage to large or "in the know" tech companies. I don't see the advantage to the consumer. The iPhone SDK is already relatively locked down so I don't want to hear security.

This being said I have an iPhone and Macbook. They are beautiful elegant machines. They work great. The interface is excellent. FreeBSD is $$$$. They've replaced my linux boxes at home. My iPhone completely pwns my old samsung blackjack. I actually use the internet on my iPhone and I enjoy using it.

I am frustrated that I can't push my iPhone apps from my macbook to my actual iPhone. I'm frustrated that I can't get some of my linux apps to work in OS X. It seems like they have it out for open source / small business / hackers. I could jail break my iPhone, but I shouldn't have to. I could install Xen and Linux, but I shouldn't have to. Sadly, I would be happy if Apple gave us the same choices as Microsoft. That should not be too much to ask.

EDITED: Syntax and a sentence or two.

No one DECIDES who can develop on windows mobile.

which might have something to do with why it's an ugly, unpleasant mess.

great technical products are not produced via democracy. they're almost always the vision of just a few people.

Meanwhile 4000 devs are going to make ALL the applications that the masses could ever want on an iPhone.

that's patently absurd. apple randomly picked 4000 iphone devs to let into the beta program. that's all. they will let in more later, once they've gotten feedback from the first crop, and understand better how the process will work.

I'm frustrated that I can't get some of my linux apps to work in OS X.

the linux community is not exactly known for making user-friendly apps. it's only natural that there would be a disconnect between their apps and macosx.

heck, i could spend all day addressing the misconceptions and downright falsehoods in this comment, but it sounds like you've already made up your mind.

great technical products are [...] almost always the vision of just a few people.

Platforms, yes -- consistency goes a long way there, and a few coherent voices can build something where all the pieces work well together.

Applications? 'the talented few' still need access to the platform. The question is, is there a way for a few, talented people to develop and deploy the killer iPhone app?

That's not a rhetorical question -- is there such a route?

i believe that there very much is. the iphone sdk is really, really good. you can get up to speed quickly.

it's a shame that apple is not giving out many of the developer keys yet. but if you're serious about this, that shouldn't be much of an impediment. you can still develop for the iphone simulator. and if you really, really need to see your app on a real iphone, you can jailbreak your phone. it's not what apple wants you to do, of course, but i really doubt they're going to disqualify developers who use that method for testing.

heck, i could spend all day addressing the misconceptions and downright falsehoods in this comment, but it sounds like you've already made up your mind.

I'll listen if you'd like to continue to comment.

great technical products are not produced via democracy. they're almost always the vision of just a few people.

This clearly puts you in the cathedral category from The Cathedral & the Bazaar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar). I think both approaches have their merits and operating systems should make room for both. Though, there are good arguments for both sides I tend to like enough openness for both approaches to compete.

that's patently absurd. apple randomly picked 4000 iphone devs to let into the beta program. that's all. they will let in more later, once they've gotten feedback from the first crop, and understand better how the process will work.

I could understand this for a few months following the launch of the beta. But at this point open it up, what are they worried about? I'd just like to be able to put my own apps on my own iPhone for starters. I don't see how that will hurt Apple's app store launch. I understand why they are doing it, I just don't agree.

I'm happy Apple is at least based on FreeBSD. If Apple is going to use Unix as a selling point then they open themselves up to some expectations from the Linux / BSD crowd. I've found ways around any problems, new apps, different work processes. But, that doesn't mean I wasn't frustrated.

i agree that it is unfortunate that you can't install your own apps on your own iphone without a key from apple, access to which they are zealously guarding. i'd love to be able to do just that.

my guess is that it's because this is somewhat tricky. the natural state of data is that it's easily copied. apple is creating artificial impediments to that natural state, in order to keep the iphone experience pristine and friendly for non-techy-types. they don't want to release something that's half-baked, then have to take it back. that would get everyone enraged.

also, apple does have an unfortunate tendency towards absolute secrecy. it's better than the endless vaporware announcements that most other companies seem to revel in, but i think they go too far sometimes.

apple's not perfect, but they do a better job than any other tech company i can think of, in my opinion.

"Free (arguably) open CIL, languages, document format, IDE, documentation."

Actually, Visual Studio Express doesn't even include a profiler, IIRC. The profiler is included only in the much more expensive enterprisey Visual Studio team edition (or whatever the hell it's called). All of Apple's developer tools are completely free and come with OS installation DVDs. Apple's compilers are based on gcc, and, per terms of the GPL, Apple's patches are sent back to gcc's maintainers.

"Meanwhile 4000 devs are going to make ALL the applications that the masses could ever want on an iPhone."

Where did you get this idea? 4000 people are in the beta, and there is no reason to believe that Apple won't let absolutely anyone on Earth develop iPhone apps as soon as the SDK reaches its final release.

"Heck, why isn't it free to push open source projects?... It seems like they have it out for open source / small business / hackers."

The iPhone App Store is free of charge to developers who choose to release free software, so I have no idea what you're complaining about. The store also lets independent developers set their own pricing. If you don't like that you can't just zap apps from iPhone to iPhone, (1) that's mainly done for safety reasons, and (2) you actually can, with the ad hoc signing mechanism discussed in WWDC keynote.

Fact check in aisle zero. Microsoft's CLR profiler is freely downloadable, no linkage to IDE versions. Additionally, there are two tiers of VS above Express, Professional and Team Suite (VSTS). VSTS comes in different editions, it's a bit convoluted but mostly irrelevant because most folks doing this for a living have an MSDN subscription (or they should, as it pays for itself pretty quickly just for dev/test licences). Collectively, these tools are frequently used to build mission-critical software for large corporations, which is probably the largest difference between MSFT's developer stack and APPL's.

Yes, They've sold this great idea to the developers. Including me. I'm waiting for Apple to implement. Ideas are one thing, implementations are another. And timing is important. I think it's safe to assume that these 4000 beta testers have an advantage. If you are allowed to release a product exclusively for any amount of time that is an advantage.

The iPhone App Store is free of charge to developers who choose to release free software, so I have no idea what you're complaining about. The store also lets independent developers set their own pricing. If you don't like that you can't just zap apps from iPhone to iPhone, (1) that's mainly done for safety reasons, and (2) you actually can, with the ad hoc signing mechanism discussed in WWDC keynote.

Like I said, I enjoy Apple products. I have a problem with the way they run their business. Just because the iPhone will someday be supportive to open source and sharing doesn't mean that it is now. When they finally do allow new small-time iPhone developers I will be celebrating with everyone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com