Sorry, but the number of developers who will take the moral high ground at the expense of potential income is vanishingly small. If it weren't, Microsoft would never have gained such a stranglehold on the market. The funny thing is that all those developers seeking income by developing for Windows and not MacOS hasn't caused Apple to change their ways in the slightest. So unless practically all developers abandoned the iPhone/iPad platform, Apple has no incentive to change. This makes the basic point of the Wired article (which I take to be that it is unfortunate Apple's strict control over iPad apps denies children of some very useful learning tools) valid. Regardless of the security and/or market control issues (and you're being naive if you think Apple's policies aren't 95+% guided by market control rather than security concerns). -Don On 04/20/2010 06:26 PM, Tim Dressel wrote:
Not that I'm a big fan of Apple, but I dislike Wired even more. What a ridiculous argument. Apple is no good because they won't have a Scratch App anymore because they discovered it violated their closed source terms of service. If you agree to a terms of service, that should be the end of it. Any informed developers will vote with their choice of platforms. Pointing the finger at Apple is wrong here, instead the finger should be pointed squarely at the developers that sacrifice moral high ground for the potential windfall of the app store captive audience. The android market plays a role here, but I fear its too late to the dance. Time will tell. On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Bill Kendrick<nbs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Not a big surprise, considering Apple's rules about interpeted languages (see: Commodore 64 emulator and Adobe Flash), but the irony here is painful :( http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/apple-scratch-app/ -- -bill! Sent from my computer
-- Don Christensen Senior Software Development Engineer djc@xxxxxxxxx Cisco Systems Austin, TX "It was a new day yesterday, but it's an old day now."