bonch

Ignoring the disputable claims that it's unpopular or has a slow learning curve (you can describe Objective-C's additions to C in a single page), there's no evidence to claim that Objective-C is about customer lock-in, especially when you can use so many alternatives including the Apple-funded MacRuby.

Apple uses Objective-C because they have a lot of code written in it, and it has served them very well. iOS is the most popular mobile platform for third-party development. The dynamic nature of the language has enabled the implementation of some useful features like key-value-observing, while the ability to drop to C retains the flexibility of system-level programming.

Even the memory management criticism is overblown. You merely have to follow an easy list of four ownership rules. That's if you're not using the garbage collector that came out four years ago with Leopard.

How did you reach that conclusion? There are plenty of alternatives, from C++ to Ruby to Mono.

> I find it surprising that there are so many people bashing Objective-C here in the comments. I have been programming in Objective-C for living since the iPhone SDK came public and I came to love both the language and the libraries.

Brackets. People see the brackets and are immediately biased against the language. Yes, many programmers really are that lazy and superficial.

Every item on your list is you projecting your personal opinions onto everyone else. Just because you and your Quicksilver-using buddies don't use Spotlight, Dashboard, or Safari RSS doesn't mean other people don't.

The features Apple adds are intended to add value and convenience for the average user. If you have RSS needs so great that you require a dedicated third-party application, you're more than welcome to use one.

Which implies that most consumers don't consider them to be dick moves.

If Google is going to exploit "open source" as a marketing term and claim at Google IO that it's trying to prevent a "draconian future," it shouldn't be withholding its source code from non-privileged partners and making licensees sign non-fragmentation clauses that give Google final approval over source changes.

In other words, if you're going to position yourself as a champion for openness, expect to get called out for not following the spirit of the idea. Especially if you're obstructing people from modifying your platform to use a competitor's product, such as Bing. That's the most alarming accusation, really, and could land them in hot water.

The implication of Option B is that Rails isn't robust. A lot of people are going to avoid Rails because of that.

I was very interested in it for a couple of weeks, but then I stopped playing much. Once in a while, I get in a mood to add onto my subterranean underworld and fire it up again. Still need to finish my underground biodome and Nether castle.

I wish the engine wasn't so inefficient. Disassembly shows some cringe-worthy code. This kind of game should run on netbooks, yet areas are choppy even on high-end machines. The pixel art also starts hurting my eyes after a while. Interpolation would help a lot. While higher-resolution texture packs help, they also risk breaking after updates.

Yes, it is, which is why console gaming surpassed PC gaming in developer support years ago, not to mention sales.

If you think problems with PCs is an exception to the rule, you're living in a dream world. The point is that, on a tablet, your parents wouldn't have had to go through the hassle of installing slow antivirus software or "manage to install" things. Installation and uninstallation is so simple that the PC method of multistep installers and uninstallers immediately looks incredibly archaic.

There are other tasks like managing photos, watching and editing movies, installing third-party software, and more that I bet your parents have trouble with or flat-out avoid on a PC. These things are easy on an iPad. Not to mention the constant threat of malware, no matter how paranoid your mom is.

If there's a totem that geeks cling to, it's the fear of the PC going away and the fantasy that PCs aren't overly complicated to an embarrassing degree, or that everyone can magically learn how to use PCs if they'd just spend hours every night on them like geeks do. It's symptomatic of a real lack of perspective when it comes to how the public deals with the standard PC. You and I think they're easy because we spend most of our time on them. They are our living or our hobby. Most people aren't like that.

If there's no reason PCs can't remove that crap, why haven't they?

If you think you don't need to know how to update drivers or maintain antivirus software on a typical PC, then your experience isn't typical of the majority of users or the poor sobs who do technical support for them.

On a tablet, there is no running an installer executable. You just tap. Uninstallation is also just a tap. It's undeniably superior.

I didn't imply at all that it was the touchscreen that makes tablets easier. I thought by the examples I gave that it was clear I was talking about the simplified paradigm of a typical tablet--a centralized store to purchase, install, and update apps; a fullscreen, one-app-at-a-time interface; no antivirus, antispyware, defraggers, registry cleaners, and so on; and a highly mobile hardware device that comfortably rests in your lap and requires no hookup or peripherals to run.

Locked by the SO Gestapo.

So your dad knows how to use Outlook, iTunes, and Facebook. Can he install applications? Update drivers? Install Windows security updates as they come out and keep his anti-virus up to date? Tablets remove all that stupid maintenance crap, and that's why they are PCs for normal people.

Yes, but Kevin Rose. I hope now you understand.

"Such Design competitions are a disguised form of crowdsourcing, and are extremely insulting to the design profession."

Oh, come off it. Too many designers become smug asses with an unwarranted sense of importance. Competitions like this are opportunities for those just starting to get their name out in the world. You're not going to be put out on the street because Skype held a public UI contest rather than hiring your firm.

If "open" is now a marketing term to be defined individually by each entity that's exploiting it, than Google and their supporters should stop using it, because it's ultimately meaningless.

The spirit of open source is supposed to be that you have access to the Android source at all times and can do what you want with it. However, it's not an open platform if Google retains final approval over source changes by licensees and is holding up phones that just so happen to use a rival search engine like Bing. It's not an open platform if they're withholding source except to their privileged partners who get early access while others don't.

I just don't understand why so much faith is placed in this multi-billion dollar advertising company. Google is not really an open source company--their core business is a closed source, proprietary content-indexing platform that just happens to be backed by open source software.

You can attack Gruber's position as an Apple advocate if you want, but that doesn't really address his points about Google. The thing I've taken away from this is that Android advocates are now defining openness in terms of degrees. It's no longer about being open; it's about being "more open," a vague idea that only gets to be defined by Google, the gatekeepers of Android.

Requiring licensees to agree to "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Google final approval over source changes is against the spirit of open source.

Google exploited the buzz of open source philosophy, so it's fascinating seeing the open source community's reaction to their stricter control over Android. Personally, I always saw the trumpeting of "openness" as an unrealistic marketing ploy.

No, you can't have it all, but that's the point. Google rode the "openness" train to gain philosophical support for Android from the open source community, even though critics pointed out that Apple's strict control has a reason. Now that Google has established a beachhead, they're exerting a kind of control over the platform that goes against the principles they originally espoused and ultimately justifies the very reasoning from Apple that Google and its supporters publicly antagonized for being a "draconian future."

Furthermore, Honeycomb's source is being withheld, allegedly for quality control reasons. However, Google's privileged partners are allowed access, which means they can start work on Honeycomb products earlier than those without access. That's not an open platform. That's an insular platform of privileged access.

The article also states that Google is requiring licensees to agree to clauses that give Google final approval over changes to the operating system. The implication is that if you make changes Google doesn't like, your Android license is at risk. This is supposed to be an open platform with which you are free to do what you want, not some Google platform.

Most troubling is the claim that Google is obstructing phones which use Bing. Bing is a Google rival. With Google having the power of final approval, holding up a Bing-using phone reveals the motives behind the Android platform. An Android phone modified to interface with Bing directly affects Google's bottom line. If Android is an open platform, it shouldn't matter if a device manufacturer chooses to go with Bing over Google. But apparently, it does matter to Google.

Google has exploited the positive feelings of the phrase "open source" for years. The point behind their free services has always been to support the closed source, proprietary search and advertising platform that makes them their money. Now, cracks are beginning to show as their genuine motives begin to influence their public behavior, revealing that Google is just another capitalist. I don't have a problem with that, but the open source community that Google has wooed and relied on for buzz over the years might.

> Android is still much more open than Apple.

Instead of being an open platform, we're apparently devolving into specifying particular degrees of openness. If you want to play that game, the Darwin operating system that provides the foundation of iOS is also open source, and it doesn't require a license to use or approval from Apple over modifications.

> A developer can actually view the Android source code

No, Google is withholding Honeycomb's source code for the indefinite future--unless you're lucky enough to be one of Google's privileged partners.

Your post is another example of the justifications we often see from Android supporters for behaviors that Apple has been criticized for in the past, such as withholding source code and holding final approval over third-party development. Google declared pretty loudly that Android exists to prevent a "draconian future" of strict control. However, Google is now exerting aspects of that control.

"To me it appears that you have a double standard. You want to criticize Google for attempting to exert the same control that Apple is rightfully lauded for."

Since when is Apple lauded for that around here? Apple is usually bashed for its strict control and closed platform. Yet when Google begins exerting that same kind of quality control, the comments section is full of defensiveness and justification. It's a double-standard.

Google fans in general have become some of the most obnoxious people on the planet, mocking Apple fans for blindly supporting a closed platform while unwittingly doing the same thing themselves, even as they preach about how open Android is.

Google is an advertising company. Android and other free products only exist to get people onto their proprietary content-indexing platform. That's why Verizon Android phones modified to use the Bing search engine are being obstructed by Google. The whole point of Android is for it to be a Google platform, not some benevolent revolution in openness and freedom.

The anger is explained in the introduction to that article. Google presented Android as an open gift to the world in a fight against strictly controlled platforms, yet Google is now withholding source code and requiring final approval over modifications to the operating system.

That they're allegedly holding up Android phones which utilize a rival search engine, Bing, is especially troubling. Is Android supposed to be an open platform or a Google platform?

But what about "openness?" I thought Android was supposed to be the answer to Apple's tight control?

Why do sites like TechCrunch use "cloud" in place of "internet?" Is it another buzzword to make old things seem new in order to make money?

Linus is a patch shepherd. It's his job to see the bigger picture.

The new definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; sleep 15778458; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

The most amusing part of your post, other than the strange grammar, is your implication that Google is some target of bias. Google gets more glowing press coverage and free passes than any other technology company. Imagine the red-hot nerd rage if it was Apple who had been caught driving vans through neighborhoods and archiving people's unprotected WiFi data.

Perhaps it's because Android is touted by Google fans as an open platform, yet the source is withheld and only given to Google's special partners until an official release.