supplierskybird.blogg.se

1. #TRACE ADOBE AIR COMMUNICATION IN OSX SOFTWARE#
2. #TRACE ADOBE AIR COMMUNICATION IN OSX CODE#
3. #TRACE ADOBE AIR COMMUNICATION IN OSX LICENSE#

That may or may not be true, though as some iPhone developers have said to me, you can write code as badly without the tools that Apple prohibits as with them.īut forget the iPhone and iPad. Forget that disaffection among developers could translate into a loss of existing or potential applications for the iPhone OS.Īfter all, there are, what, 150,000 apps already available? Who would notice a few that disappeared? Or even a few thousand? Gruber thinks that the terms changes might enforce development standards and mean better quality choices for users. The problem for developers may be clear, but how do the new Apple developer terms affect customers? Forget for a moment that more time and energy in development probably means higher prices for some software. Some are already, and others are considering pulling their products off the iPhone.

#TRACE ADOBE AIR COMMUNICATION IN OSX SOFTWARE#

Although many developers want to sell their software to iPhone and iPad users, eventually many may give up. Any time you tell developers how they should work, you limit technical and business choices that might be valid and useful. Gruber does go on to say that there's no change for iPhone developers, and I'd disagree with that. I'm just arguing that it makes sense from Apple's perspective - and it was Apple's decision to make. I'm not arguing (up to this point) that it benefits anyone other than Apple itself. I'm not arguing that it's anything other than ruthless competitiveness.

#TRACE ADOBE AIR COMMUNICATION IN OSX LICENSE#

So from Apple's perspective, changing the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement to prohibit the use of things like Flash CS5 and MonoTouch to create iPhone apps makes complete sense. Straightforward enough, and I largely agree with Gruber's analysis, though you have to wonder whether Jobs also noticed this: That's the sort of situation that creates a license to print money.Īpple doesn't want another platform that could become the standard and keep Apple from locking in developers and the customers that come with them. At a certain point developers wrote apps for Windows because so many users were on Windows and users bought Windows PCs because all the software was being written for Windows. But the point of the post was that Apple wanted to lock developers into the iPhone OS platform and turn the app store into a de facto platform: Jobs said that Apple thought that Gruber was insightful and didn't see what he wrote as negative. Tao Effect blogger and software developer Greg Slepak posted that he emailed Jobs about the term changes and that Apple's CEO responded, pointing to John Gruber's post about the situation. Are app developers truly independent businesses, or would tax codes let the IRS classify them as employees? If some class action lawyers don't have a field day with this, I could see the IRS having some fun. Through the terms, Apple becomes a quasi-employer that controls how app developers do their work and, effectively, makes it more difficult for them to create and sell software for multiple handsets. That action is beyond setting technical specifications.