<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Very Sweet Solution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: latebloomer</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-103166</link>
		<dc:creator>latebloomer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:52:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-103166</guid>
		<description>All conjecture aside, the decision to lock out developers was probably moslty a leagal decision. I'm sure SJ's lawyers would hate to imagine what would be possible with a next-gen phone on a major carrier's network relatively unsecured. I'm sure AT&#38;T locked Apple down with some serious legal language to ensure the appropriate heads would roll should the unthinkable (a virus? a hack? worse?) should happen. 

Remember, AT&#38;T made some MAJOR changes to their network to accomodate this new phone. They have as much to lose in this investment as Apple does if it fails. So to limit the number of things that could go wrong at launch (eg lock out developers) would seem likt a natural result.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All conjecture aside, the decision to lock out developers was probably moslty a leagal decision. I'm sure SJ's lawyers would hate to imagine what would be possible with a next-gen phone on a major carrier's network relatively unsecured. I'm sure AT&amp;T locked Apple down with some serious legal language to ensure the appropriate heads would roll should the unthinkable (a virus? a hack? worse?) should happen. </p>
<p>Remember, AT&amp;T made some MAJOR changes to their network to accomodate this new phone. They have as much to lose in this investment as Apple does if it fails. So to limit the number of things that could go wrong at launch (eg lock out developers) would seem likt a natural result.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: snarkyboojum</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-96052</link>
		<dc:creator>snarkyboojum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:04:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-96052</guid>
		<description>"If it's in Apple's interest to release an SDK, they will. If not, they won't."

I know I probably live in la-la land, but I think it's in Apple's interest to listen carefully to it's developer base. But then I also happen to think Free Software is the way forward.

"Quit whining."

I also think that lively discussion is important. Apple gets feedback this way. These comments are legitimate in my opinion. I for one would rather not have someone implying that they're irrelevant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"If it's in Apple's interest to release an SDK, they will. If not, they won't."</p>
<p>I know I probably live in la-la land, but I think it's in Apple's interest to listen carefully to it's developer base. But then I also happen to think Free Software is the way forward.</p>
<p>"Quit whining."</p>
<p>I also think that lively discussion is important. Apple gets feedback this way. These comments are legitimate in my opinion. I for one would rather not have someone implying that they're irrelevant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sxtxixtxcxh</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95679</link>
		<dc:creator>sxtxixtxcxh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:55:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95679</guid>
		<description>hey guys...

i made a little badge just for those iphone apps... 

http://blog.zydev.info/2007/06/16/ready-for-iphone-the-badge/

remember the 'Made for iPod' badge? mocking apple w/apple.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hey guys...</p>
<p>i made a little badge just for those iphone apps... </p>
<p><a href="http://blog.zydev.info/2007/06/16/ready-for-iphone-the-badge/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.zydev.info/2007/06/16/ready-for-iphone-the-badge/</a></p>
<p>remember the 'Made for iPod' badge? mocking apple w/apple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stingerster</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95638</link>
		<dc:creator>stingerster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2007 03:05:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95638</guid>
		<description>Hey guys, have any of you actually seen what is included in Apple's "browser".  Look at what they include: CoreVideo, Quicktime, etc, etc.  (It's part of the Window's install.) So an Apple Web 2.0 app can do a lot more than just any other browser.  I's standard compliant but has access to all the services the iPhone offer, including the interface elements, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey guys, have any of you actually seen what is included in Apple's "browser".  Look at what they include: CoreVideo, Quicktime, etc, etc.  (It's part of the Window's install.) So an Apple Web 2.0 app can do a lot more than just any other browser.  I's standard compliant but has access to all the services the iPhone offer, including the interface elements, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chez</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95526</link>
		<dc:creator>Chez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:17:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95526</guid>
		<description>No Macromedia Flash support, and all Javascripts must run for less than 5 seconds.... It's not even a good environment for Web 2.0 apps.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No Macromedia Flash support, and all Javascripts must run for less than 5 seconds.... It's not even a good environment for Web 2.0 apps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: l0ne</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95388</link>
		<dc:creator>l0ne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:38:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95388</guid>
		<description>Please note that there is a way we can have advanced, JavaScript-enabled graphics on web pages in a safe manner via Quartz Composer which could (I hope) be supported via usual QuickTime plugin syntax :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please note that there is a way we can have advanced, JavaScript-enabled graphics on web pages in a safe manner via Quartz Composer which could (I hope) be supported via usual QuickTime plugin syntax :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hostile Monkey</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95315</link>
		<dc:creator>Hostile Monkey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95315</guid>
		<description>I should point out that entirety of my previous post/rant was NOT directed at n[ate]vw!

I was just picking up on your very valid "it ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it" point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should point out that entirety of my previous post/rant was NOT directed at n[ate]vw!</p>
<p>I was just picking up on your very valid "it ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it" point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hostile Monkey</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95314</link>
		<dc:creator>Hostile Monkey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:16:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95314</guid>
		<description>@ n[ate]vw

I understand that it's the "marketing schlep" that some developers have taken to heart. Gruber makes some valid comments.

But my! Aren't Apple developers a touchy bunch! I think the real complaint I have is that there was no realistic, competent expectation of an SDK being released. However, those nutjobs who DID feel that they were somehow divinely entitled to one (and would want whatever crapfest documentation came along with it), are now jumping on this, foaming at the mouth, and generally drowning out just about any other discussions.

We all know the reasons why there *isn't* an SDK, and Jobs's ill-judged attempt to put "lipstick on the pig" (cf Macalope) by reaffirming the browser's "first class" status has rubbed some people up the wrong way. However, I'm getting mighty sick of all the shit-flinging going on among the chimps here, and I look forward to when everyone's calmed down and got on with their lives.

If it's in Apple's interest to release an SDK, they will. If not, they won't.

And if anyone's been stupid enough to bet life savings on the hope that they will, then that's your problem. Quit whining.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ n[ate]vw</p>
<p>I understand that it's the "marketing schlep" that some developers have taken to heart. Gruber makes some valid comments.</p>
<p>But my! Aren't Apple developers a touchy bunch! I think the real complaint I have is that there was no realistic, competent expectation of an SDK being released. However, those nutjobs who DID feel that they were somehow divinely entitled to one (and would want whatever crapfest documentation came along with it), are now jumping on this, foaming at the mouth, and generally drowning out just about any other discussions.</p>
<p>We all know the reasons why there *isn't* an SDK, and Jobs's ill-judged attempt to put "lipstick on the pig" (cf Macalope) by reaffirming the browser's "first class" status has rubbed some people up the wrong way. However, I'm getting mighty sick of all the shit-flinging going on among the chimps here, and I look forward to when everyone's calmed down and got on with their lives.</p>
<p>If it's in Apple's interest to release an SDK, they will. If not, they won't.</p>
<p>And if anyone's been stupid enough to bet life savings on the hope that they will, then that's your problem. Quit whining.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Squashing the Hope...</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95289</link>
		<dc:creator>Squashing the Hope...</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95289</guid>
		<description>The level of "integration" is virtually zero.

There is no, I repeat, ZERO access to any data on the phone.

There is no local persistent store outside of cookies.

There is no Flash, so you can't even use that to do an "end run" around lack of persistent store.

There is no *outbound file transmission*...you want a picture off the phone, you need to use email. No AJAX uploading.

And as yet another steve said...there is no indication *whatsoever*...not a single hint, that this will change.

The i"Phone" is essentially a widescreen NAND Flash-based iPod...the greatest of its kind, no doubt, that happens to have phone and web browsing.

That was the MWSF takeaway, and the confirmation was delivered at WWDC. As Steve Jobs said in January:

"An iPod...a Phone...an Internet device...An iPod...a Phone...an Internet device...An iPod...a Phone...an Internet device...are you guys getting this yet?"

Well...

Are ya'? ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The level of "integration" is virtually zero.</p>
<p>There is no, I repeat, ZERO access to any data on the phone.</p>
<p>There is no local persistent store outside of cookies.</p>
<p>There is no Flash, so you can't even use that to do an "end run" around lack of persistent store.</p>
<p>There is no *outbound file transmission*...you want a picture off the phone, you need to use email. No AJAX uploading.</p>
<p>And as yet another steve said...there is no indication *whatsoever*...not a single hint, that this will change.</p>
<p>The i"Phone" is essentially a widescreen NAND Flash-based iPod...the greatest of its kind, no doubt, that happens to have phone and web browsing.</p>
<p>That was the MWSF takeaway, and the confirmation was delivered at WWDC. As Steve Jobs said in January:</p>
<p>"An iPod...a Phone...an Internet device...An iPod...a Phone...an Internet device...An iPod...a Phone...an Internet device...are you guys getting this yet?"</p>
<p>Well...</p>
<p>Are ya'? ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: yet another steve</title>
		<link>http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95194</link>
		<dc:creator>yet another steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/06/13/a-very-sweet-solution/#comment-95194</guid>
		<description>A lot of you think SJ implied that there's a more robust solution, and probably an SDK, coming down the road. Where specifically are you getting this idea? Keeping 3rd party apps off the iPhone IS a reasonable business decision. (I don't like it, but it's not unreasonable.) So it is not obvious to me that an SDK has to be coming. And I haven't read any hints of one, even between the lines.

There are a lot of downsides to providing an SDK: security, deciding what to expose and having to maintain compatibility with it, support developers, etc. Balanced against that, it would make it a platform... and platforms lead to unexpected innovations.

Is there anything to the SDK-in-the-future idea other than wishful thinking?

@ addicted

Yes, I know there's a lot more to WWDC than the keynote. I was just commenting on the appropriateness of the message to the audience. But, frankly, Gruber put it much better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot of you think SJ implied that there's a more robust solution, and probably an SDK, coming down the road. Where specifically are you getting this idea? Keeping 3rd party apps off the iPhone IS a reasonable business decision. (I don't like it, but it's not unreasonable.) So it is not obvious to me that an SDK has to be coming. And I haven't read any hints of one, even between the lines.</p>
<p>There are a lot of downsides to providing an SDK: security, deciding what to expose and having to maintain compatibility with it, support developers, etc. Balanced against that, it would make it a platform... and platforms lead to unexpected innovations.</p>
<p>Is there anything to the SDK-in-the-future idea other than wishful thinking?</p>
<p>@ addicted</p>
<p>Yes, I know there's a lot more to WWDC than the keynote. I was just commenting on the appropriateness of the message to the audience. But, frankly, Gruber put it much better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.285 seconds -->
