Life In 19x19

The XGS client actually integrates beautifully with the xdroid device. Better than the Xesktop client integrates with the Xesktop OS anyhow.

flOvermind wrote:Ok, let's say you have a device. Let's call it xPad.

On this device, there are native apps, written in an obscure language called Objective-X. Nobody really knows what this language is about, but you are able to produce apps with a really great user experience. And there is also the possibility to write apps in a cross-platform language called Xava. Programmers really like Xava, but the programs written in it don't integrate so well with the rest of the xPad.

Now let's say there is a go server, called XGS. You really like to play on that go server. But unfortunately, it is written in Xava. XMS, the writer of the go server, doesn't have enough time to port it to Objective-X. After all, that's just XMS's hobby project.

Would you rather:
a) Use XGS, even though it doesn't fit in well with the UI of the xPad. But at least it works.
or
b) Don't use XGS, even though there is an app available.

I'm aware that you would rather use the Objective-X implementation of XGS. But when that option is not available, which one would you prefer?

I'd rather the format to the XGS server be open, so others can write clients.

And you say:

Nobody really knows what this language is about...

That's quite a bold statement, considering how many developers write applications with it. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean others don't.

flOvermind wrote: Would you rather:
a) Use XGS, even though it doesn't fit in well with the UI of the xPad. But at least it works.
or
b) Don't use XGS, even though there is an app available.

Seeing that kirkmc believes that it's better to not have a feature than have a badly implemented one, b would be his answer. Which goes really well with the kind of customers Apple wants. They make super nice looking hardware and software. But they are limited in what they can do. If you can live with the limitations, Apple is for you.

If not, then Apple is the wrong choice. It's really that simple. What I'm so annoyed at is Apple's habit of trying to justify their lock in strategies with technical arguments that doesn't really hold water. It's misleading and they know it.

I'll agree that the technical arguments are disingenuous, but they are not completely invalid. Performance and stability in flash on non-windows platforms is atrocious, has been for a long time, and Adobe hasn't shown a great deal of interest in fixing it. It's a too-convenient excuse, but it's also true.

kirkmc wrote:

Nobody really knows what this language is about...

That's quite a bold statement, considering how many developers write applications with it. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean others don't.

Compare that to the number of developers writing applications in Java. Objective C developers are just a tiny minority.

kirkmc wrote:I'd rather the format to the XGS server be open, so others can write clients.

Yes, me too. But that option is not available. What would be your second choice?

CarlJung wrote:Seeing that kirkmc believes that it's better to not have a feature than have a badly implemented one, b would be his answer.

That's what I'd like to know. So far he's been dodging the question

fwiffo wrote:I'll agree that the technical arguments are disingenuous, but they are not completely invalid. Performance and stability in flash on non-windows platforms is atrocious, has been for a long time, and Adobe hasn't shown a great deal of interest in fixing it. It's a too-convenient excuse, but it's also true.

I agree with that. I would actually be happy to get rid of Flash. But in order to get rid of Flash, we need something better. HTML 5 + JavaScript is headed in the right direction, but it's not quite there yet.

As soon as a good alternative is available, developers will start using it. If it's really better, developers will make better applications using it. Users will get used to the better applications, pressuring more developers to use it. Eventually, no developer will use Flash because the users won't like the crappy Flash applications. And when developers won't use it anymore, it's safe to remove it from the platforms.

That's of course only *if* the alternatives are really better. And it's also a useful benchmark to find out whether the alternatives are better. That's called competition. The best technologies will be used, bad technologies die out. If Apple had a better alternative to Flash, where would be the harm in allowing Flash on the devices? Nobody would use it anyway, if something better were available.

Sadly, the reality is different: Java and Flash have a big advantage over native apps: They are cross-platform. You can make one application that runs on multiple devices. With some care, it's even possible to write one application that runs on the desktop and on mobile devices. Turn that around to the point of view of the user, and you have more applications that run on your device. That advantage may turn out to be more important to users than the disadvantages.

And that's what Apple is afraid of. The biggest strength of their devices, and one of the main selling points is the huge number of available apps ("There's an app for that."). By allowing cross-platform technologies, they might lose that advantage.

flOvermind wrote: And that's what Apple is afraid of. The biggest strength of their devices, and one of the main selling points is the huge number of available apps ("There's an app for that."). By allowing cross-platform technologies, they might lose that advantage.

One could still write apps in these cross platform languages. But I suppose you mean they will get less native apps?

CarlJung wrote:

flOvermind wrote: And that's what Apple is afraid of. The biggest strength of their devices, and one of the main selling points is the huge number of available apps ("There's an app for that."). By allowing cross-platform technologies, they might lose that advantage.

One could still write apps in these cross platform languages. But I suppose you mean they will get less native apps?

Yes, the Apple devices would get more apps. But the competition would also get these apps. Allowing cross-platform technologies allows the competition to catch up. That's why Apple allows Java and Flash on their desktop devices. In theory, the same "official" arguments would apply there, so why do they allow Java and Flash there? Simple: In that market Apple is the one needing to catch up

CarlJung wrote:

flOvermind wrote: Would you rather:
a) Use XGS, even though it doesn't fit in well with the UI of the xPad. But at least it works.
or
b) Don't use XGS, even though there is an app available.

Seeing that kirkmc believes that it's better to not have a feature than have a badly implemented one, b would be his answer. Which goes really well with the kind of customers Apple wants. They make super nice looking hardware and software. But they are limited in what they can do. If you can live with the limitations, Apple is for you.

If not, then Apple is the wrong choice. It's really that simple. What I'm so annoyed at is Apple's habit of trying to justify their lock in strategies with technical arguments that doesn't really hold water. It's misleading and they know it.

Actually the reason I don't care too much about Java on the iPad is because I know what it's like to have bloated operating systems that try and cater to everything. I've used Windows, even though now I work on Macs. The technical arguments are totally valid; the iPad is not a computer, and there is a consistency required in the way apps look.

As for Flash, I truly couldn't care less. I don't watch many online videos, and don't use Flash for anything else. At best, it's a nuisance, because of Flash ads on web sites; though I use ClickToFlash to hide them.

fwiffo wrote:I'll agree that the technical arguments are disingenuous, but they are not completely invalid. Performance and stability in flash on non-windows platforms is atrocious, has been for a long time, and Adobe hasn't shown a great deal of interest in fixing it. It's a too-convenient excuse, but it's also true.

Apple has done something quite amazing with battery life on the iPad: it really gets more than ten hours on a charge. If people used Flash apps and that went down to five hours, it would be a problem. In part because the use of the iPad as an ebook reader, while not trumpeted by Apple, is one reason people are buying it. So if you use too much battery with a Flash app, you'll find that you won't be able to read much. And, Apple's battery estimates will be invalid.

I've yet to find an app that really uses up the battery more quickly than others on the iPad, which is not the case with the iPhone.

flOvermind wrote:

kirkmc wrote:

Nobody really knows what this language is about...

That's quite a bold statement, considering how many developers write applications with it. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean others don't.

Compare that to the number of developers writing applications in Java. Objective C developers are just a tiny minority.

kirkmc wrote:I'd rather the format to the XGS server be open, so others can write clients.

Yes, me too. But that option is not available. What would be your second choice?

CarlJung wrote:Seeing that kirkmc believes that it's better to not have a feature than have a badly implemented one, b would be his answer.

That's what I'd like to know. So far he's been dodging the question

We're talking here about KGS - so the question is, should Apple have Java on the iPad, or should wms open up the KGS protocol... I kind of thing the latter is a bit more easy to implement, but that's just me.

FWIW, CGoban is the only Java app I use. I may have used one or two other, and probably only because I was reviewing them. I don't know of more than a handful of Java apps that people really use on the Mac. So you may have lots of Java developers writing for Windows, but I don't see the point, since it seems that only Windows users use Java a lot.

As far as I know, the basic reason for Apple's decision not to support Flash is that Adobe ticked off Steve Jobs in the 90s ("You are not important; we don't need to support your niche system"), and now he lets them feel it back.

There is also a more objective problem, viz. the generally bad support of Flash, which, in my opinion, indicates that the standard is horrible.

Finally, the usefulness of a system is not only defined by what is available on it, but also by what is not present on it. Are there still Firefox users who do not have AdBlock and NoScript?

So, I do understand why Apple does this. For me as a user, it just means that these gadgets are not generally useful.

Harleqin wrote:As far as I know, the basic reason for Apple's decision not to support Flash is that Adobe ticked off Steve Jobs in the 90s ("You are not important; we don't need to support your niche system"), and now he lets them feel it back.

There is also a more objective problem, viz. the generally bad support of Flash, which, in my opinion, indicates that the standard is horrible.

Finally, the usefulness of a system is not only defined by what is available on it, but also by what is not present on it. Are there still Firefox users who do not have AdBlock and NoScript?

So, I do understand why Apple does this. For me as a user, it just means that these gadgets are not generally useful.

Adobe did support the Mac OS in the 90s, but they just delayed their new versions of key programs like Photoshop and Illustrator. Whether this was because of pressure from Microsoft, or their own desire to see these programs expand on PCs is unclear, but at the time, Windows was a real dog with such programs, so it was an odd decision.

kirkmc wrote:We're talking here about KGS - so the question is, should Apple have Java on the iPad, or should wms open up the KGS protocol... I kind of thing the latter is a bit more easy to implement, but that's just me.

If you only look at it from this narrow point of view, then yes.

But KGS is not the only Java app out there. There are lots of Java apps. Porting every single one of them is a lot more work that just implementing and supporting a single feature: Java support. And I'm still not convinced that implementing Java in a way that integrates nicely with the rest of the OS is not possible...