Re: Section 3.3.1
- From: "Daniel Johnson" <danieljohnson2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 15:33:39 -0400
"Sandman" <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:mr-AE8924.21053731052010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <MpWdnXY3Sfp8nJnRnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Daniel Johnson" <danieljohnson2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On the contrary; Apple's supports as little of the 'real web' as they can
get away with, precisely because it would be portable if they did. That is
why there is no Flash, no Silverlight, no Java, no plug-ins or applets of
any kind.
I.e. a better web.
If by better, you mean "not like an application", then yes. :D
They don't support HTML because they want to be open. They do so because
they need a web-browser for their iProducts to be worth using, and HTML is
the bare minimum they can get away with.
I.e. HTML5, the bleeding edge of HTML and also a moving target, is the
bare minimum they can get away with.
You do realize that the Wired magazine could have been built purely in
HTML5?
Yes, indeed. This is a testament to how limited it is.
Fortunately for Apple, HTML is terrible for apps, so this isn't a serious
problem for their control over the platform and everything on it.
Your ignorance of HTML5 is duly noted - especially in a discussion
about a content-centric publication.
HTML would be adequate for the Wired App, which isn't really much of an app. It is not remotely adequate for an actual app. I do not think HTML5 will change this; I don't understand why anyone would expect it to.
[snip]
But how do they continue to protect themselves now, in light of section
3.3.1?
The "Wired strategy" is a way to do this, so I think we'll see more of that.
We'll see more content provider provide content? That's great news!
Well, if that's what you want to see, I guess it is.
But perhaps there's some other way developers can protect themselves?
Maybe it's by developing the best products on the most profitable
mobile platform in the world? Yeah, that may work.
No. Then Apple gets to screw them. Apple has repeatedly demonstrated that they love to do that.
[snip]
A while ago, I thought of writing a post on what Windows 7 and .NET 4 mean
for MS's APIs, but the connection to Apple would have been paper-thin.
So.. it would have been like any normal post from you? :)
Yeah, pretty much. :/
[snip]
> Second, the sort of cross-platform techniques Adobe has mostly used to
> date are *allowable* under Section 3.3.1.
Absolutely not. Lua is not one of the few allowed languages.
Hi there, Edwin. How about reading the next paragraph?
Just because the next sentence directly contradicts the prior, that doesn't mean I don't get to contradict it too! I wanted to join in the fun!
[snip]
You can only do this, under Section 3.3.1, if you build the entire
portability framework yourself.
Any developer that has to rely on a portability layer from a third
party will be screwed by that third party sooner than later.
No. Not everyone is like Apple. In fact, pretty much nobody in this business is *anywhere near* as abusive, or as unpredictable, as Apple is.
Depending on *anyone* else is a great improvement.
[snip]
.
- References:
- Section 3.3.1
- From: Daniel Johnson
- Re: Section 3.3.1
- From: ZnU
- Re: Section 3.3.1
- From: Daniel Johnson
- Re: Section 3.3.1
- From: ZnU
- Re: Section 3.3.1
- From: Daniel Johnson
- Section 3.3.1
- Prev by Date: Re: Section 3.3.1
- Next by Date: Re: Section 3.3.1
- Previous by thread: Re: Section 3.3.1
- Next by thread: Re: Section 3.3.1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
