Meaning they stopped digging a deeper hole?
Or that they do continue to dig, only now it's filling up faster then they can dig?
75 karma · joined February 23, 2007
Or that they do continue to dig, only now it's filling up faster then they can dig?
Short answer: You still need to get apples seal of approval.
You will still have to use the AppStore to get that app on the iPhone. The only other route is a web-app. You will still have to get Apples seal of approval to get on the AppStore. There is no alternative. You will still have to adhere to the HIG (and more) to get Apples seal of approval. So no generic cross-platform apps, your app will have to behave like a proper iOS app in every way.
I think that in reality nothing has actually changed. The reason behind the original ban of 3d party cross-platform frameworks has not changed. It's just the way in which Apple defends against this risk that has changed.
So we can forget about a simple cross-platform middleware layer that can create the same app for multiple platforms, however this is maybe less a problem for games then other applications?
So, either the app developer gives the app a native user experience; Or the middleware developer makes it so that any app using his middleware is always conform the guidelines? As far as I can tell this still rules out any simple use of the simple and generic cross-platform middleware layers?
What if the added value of the work being done is lower then the minimum wage? Then no employer will pay you to do it. Or consider a machine which can do the same job cheaper then some employees earning minimum wage: How long before the job will be automated?
In a world where much physical work is automated away there might not be enough remaining work left for everyone. And the simple law of supply and demand a labor surplus will lead to increasingly lower wages. As soon as this hits minimum wage the work will either move to a place with a lower minimum wage or none at all, or the work is just eliminated (not done) if one can get away with it.
It all ends up the same… With a surplus of (some kinds of) labor, wages will decrease so that some people are unable to earn a livable income. At the same time a shortage of (some kinds of) labor will lead to higher wages, which means that automation becomes viable at higher prices. In either case, given enough time most people will end up without a job, without an income: Only the owners of businesses will share in the profits.
The only way to get out of this mess is that either the incomes at the bottom must rise or basis necessities must come down. At the sometime jobs have become more mobile then people, moving to places where the labor force is even less expensive. Failing that, there is automation which increases productivity per worker, which also will result in less jobs overall.
So we get to a point where a large part of the population will be permanently unemployed because there are not enough jobs for everyone. These people will need to be able to pay for basic necessities just like anyone else. Even the people who do have a job will find that their wage is not enough: Giving the surplus in workers the wages will go way down.
The only way to solve this is to introduce an unconditional livable basic income for every individual citizen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
Given available evidence at least some postulated deities have become increasingly unlikely, but this is not the case of all. Some might have merit if only they where actual observed from time to time.
Imagine someone was able to calculate where the ball will fall with only a glance of the roulette wheel…
Or someone who is able to go from casino to casino every hour of his life? Without requiring a full night of sleep and somehow always have enough cash with him to travel from casino to casino and always play 3 times at roulette?
So I think that this has nothing to do with empirical science?
How do you recognize a deity? Which observable, ideally measurable, features should one be looking for?
The concept of god used to be simple: Anything more powerful then me is a god. A very simple test and the existence of gods is obvious.
Then we started to add more and more and also expect more and more from our gods. Currently we seem to expect them to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-whatever… which is really pushing it beyond even internal consistency, let alone observable reality.
I wonder what would (in the 21ste century) be considered evidence of a "god"?
Would we classify an actual existing Zeus as "god" or just as a member of a more powerful intelligent species? Would we apply the term "god" to the god of the Hebrews? Or would we rather consider it to be a very advanced alien?
Imagine this speculative scenario: Next week a very powerful non-human entity will manifest itself on earth. It will claim that it is the representative of the creator of the universe and that has seen how the creator made life on earth.
What could it present as evidence which would convince you that what it was saying is actually true? What evidence would convince you that it's not just a delusional alien with more scientific and technological knowledge and very advanced technology?
With other words: What does "globalization" really mean?
Here we have left empirical science and moved on to "anything can happen" speculative fiction, where authority counts as sufficient evidence, and the lack of observations maybe explained away.
Any hypotheses which does not differentiate between "ordering" and "organization" is not actually a science, it's a cargo cult.
Design is harder then coding because one has to define the constraints and requirements in which the program has to work.
And this is not even considering that the iOS version of Safari (afaik) doesn't even have a plugin infrastructure to support 3d party plugins.
Personally I don't think Adobe can actually make a stable, efficient, full implementation of the flash plugin for a iphone/ipad style mobile device? After years of trying they still can't make one for any full power Mac, so why should anyone assume that they can for much slower mobile-devices?
I think Adobe's strategy is to make as much noise about the relevance of flash, keep promising an implementation of Flash "really soon now", while they'll wait until the hardware of mobile devices has become fast enough to handle flash without draining the battery.
I think it would be better is the world would get to the point where unix (as an informal platform) with many implementations became the norm?
Some kind of low-level virtual machine layer could then be used to support binary-only distribution for commercial software?
http://www.smalltalk.org/ also http://www.squeak.org/ http://selflanguage.org/
One has to be a wee bit naive to "accept as true" everything that one can see: The truth is often hidden behind very convincing illusions and stories, most of which are not really false. These stories often represent other, more limited, truths, pieces of the reality underneath.
To believe something is "to be convinced of the truthfulness of it", to have faith is to have hope in the future based on a belief.
Believe and faith can be misplaced: To be convinced that something is true does not make it true. A conviction which is specific enough maybe testable, a conviction can sometimes be proven or disproven. It is rational to hold convictions which are consistent with available evidence and experiences.
A theology is a (philosophical) theory about gods. A theology may be specific enough to be testable, most however are not. Someone who is convinced that a particular theology is true has a religious conviction or religious believe, which often becomes part of the persons identity or self-identification.
People who share similar theological convictions often join together to form religious groups and religious organizations. One can be convinced either by personally examining the evidence available or by the believing the word of someone who one considers an authority (often as part of the religious organization one is a member of).
The word "god" has also taken on a whole different meaning. The word god used to mean someone with authority and power. For example: In the bible Jezus applies the word "gods" to human judges? By this definition it's obvious that there are gods, many even. [We could then reserve the word "God" (with a capital letter) for the hypothetical entity which has no authority above him. Which leads to the weird conclusion that (this hypothetical) God would be the only true atheist: a-theist, without-god.]
The word "natural" is also confusing. Regardless of what we personally may think: Assume for a moment that the universe was created by someone who was not created. Now we have the situation that the universe is not "natural", but rather "artificial". The only thing natural would be this creator who what no created.
This makes it currently impossible to reason from within science about intelligent design. Intelligent design is not inherently unscientific, but it does challenge some of the most basis assumptions at the basis of modern day science: The unproven (and perhaps unprovable) conviction that Life, the universe and the rest are all purely natural (and not artificial).
The word "supernatural" is also meaningless. Just try to define any observable phenomenon which is neither natural nor artificial? By implicit definition no observable phenomenon could ever be labeled supernatural. Just the fact that we are able to observe it either makes it natural or artificial. Logic leaves no room for anything else.
Sapphire crystal is Al₂O₃, which has a hardness of 9. So it's hard, but not that hard.
I do think however that if Apple thought that there was a viable superior alternative then they would have taken it, which they have done in a few countries, I believe? Any operator would have difficulty supporting the iPhone, that's the whole point: The iPhone changes the game.
Maybe more competition would have been better? But then again, it might not. Data infrastructure is weird: The network is most valuable if it's cheap and stupid, all the value is added at its edges. http://www.worldofends.com/ This however means, as Davis Isenberg and others already understood many years ago, that the best network is the worst to make profitable. I would not want to be AT&T.
The whole concept of a multi-platform framework is anti-innovation, anti-diversity: Its only purpose is to generalize, to make make everything uniform and the same by removing everything special, removing that which differentiates, that which makes the difference. It's about "think alike", "Move together".
Small wonder Apple doesn't accept it.