Quote: Original post by Antheus

Quote: Original post by stimarco

Many developers find this a very uncomfortable position to be in. They're used to being top of the heap. They could tell designers and end users to just do as the High Priests of the Temple Of Code tell them. This is no longer true. And it hurts. It burns many of the old-school programmers and hackers. They don't want to adapt. They don't like being a mere subject, when they used to be the very gods themselves.

Here's a dirty secret.

Why did software industry fall in love with this type of developer?

It's cheaper to pay in ego than in cash. And it's still done today.

As for old-school programmers. Adapt? To what? Nothing has changed. The folks in business are the ones who need to adjust a few process graphs.

But the people in charge of development teams are often ex-programmers themselves. (CTOs don't spring, fully formed, from the foreheads of CEOs.) Being ex-programmers, they're also likely to have been old-school ex-programmers, only these guys no longer program computers actively any more, and have moved onto programming people instead. Programming them with old, outdated notions and ideas from an age when the Systems Analyst stalked the Earth.

Quote: If anything, it's sales people that get completely left out. In small businesses, AppStore gives developers direct sales channel, cutting out most of sales and some marketing. Developers *love* these new app stores since they take care of the stuff they suck at, or could not afford.

Some developers, yes.

But many genuinely do fail to "get" Apple's design philosophy. Apple's App Store approvals process gets a lot of stick, yet most rejections are invariably due to a "good enough", rather than "best possible" approach to app development. Apple want quality applications for their hardware that their customers can actually wrap their heads around. Take a look at the "cream" of the apps available for Android handsets and contrast with the cream of the iDevice crop.

Developers who believe Blender and WinAMP are good examples of interface design will try their hand at iPhone development and fail miserably, before proceeding to bad-mouth Apple and their "draconian" or "evil" approvals process and "restrictive" App Store policies. (Though why keeping badly designed and buggy crud out of the App Store is such a bad thing for consumers escapes me. It may suck if you're developing that kind of thing, but that's entirely your problem.)

Quote: Seriously, this view of programmers is just too naive.

Actually, my full opinion of the vast majority of programmers is unsuitable for family viewing. The wider development community has probably done more harm to the IT industry than all of Google or Microsoft's less ethically sound business practices combined. But this isn't really the forum for another of my rants on the subject.

Quote: Original post by stimarco
<massive wall of text about how Apple brings users salvation from oppressive, evil, incompetent developers>

I don't quite see how arbitrary restrictions on what you can and can't do with your own devices or censoring content is for the benefit of the user. I also don't see how forcing developers to use outdated tools and placing other arbitrary restrictions on their development process, thereby making development slower, more expensive and more error prone, benefits the user. And how exactly does the user benefit from the ban on applications that compete with Apple's offerings?

Apple isn't user centric, it's Apple centric. Anything that threatens their lock-in must simply be erased from their iWorld. I'm all for quality standards, and I'd happily cheer Apple on if that's what they were trying to bring to their platform, but it isn't.

The thread's former name of "Apple's Impact on Education" has become misleading...

Quote: Developers who believe Blender and WinAMP are good examples of interface design will try their hand at iPhone development and fail miserably, before proceeding to bad-mouth Apple <...> (Though why keeping badly designed and buggy crud out of the App Store is such a bad thing for consumers escapes me.)

Lower level control leaves more room for experimentation at the cost of marketability. On my own time, that's a price I'm willing to pay. I do not (currently) wish to program under Apple's policies because with enough work and with the connections, I can compete. Besides, weren't these folks once toying with the very tools I prefer to play with? The "old-school" stuff? New generations have the advantage of building on what we have today, but they also can borrow historical or "outdated" ideas and steer us in a new direction. Crappy designs are inevitable for people like me, but that will pass with experience.

Quote: The programmer served the user, not the other way around.

I still do not see any context where the user serves the programmer.

Quote: The problem is that most of today's developers have grown up on PCs, using MS-DOS, various flavours of Windows and / or GNU / Linux. They've been spoilt rotten because these environments place the development process front and centre.

Working in the computer industry requires problem solving skills, and you're saying a focus on a development process does not hone that discipline? And you are accusing me of ignorant ranting?

Quote: Apple is easy as pie compared to bureaucracy of Microsoft.

I don't think MS and Apple are much different when it comes to bureaucracy. Wouldn't it take more regulations and red tape in order to make something easy as pie? Besides, what I saw in this program was more bureaucratic than anything I've seen before. 'Twas simple, though.

Quote: But Apple are the exception. They were always about the end user.

The end user could be anybody. Apple is not about users like me. That's fine. I'm just saying that you yourself seem to think that the only kind of users there are are guys with "World's Best Dad" mugs. ALL programmers are about the end user, even if it's themselves.

Please don't make the assumption that programmers intentionally seek bad designs and do what they do for the hell of it. I love the look and feel of what Apple has, and I would point anyone interested in simplicity in their direction. Still, they are not so special that they are the only ones capable of making a design worth anything.

Quote: Apple isn't user centric, it's Apple centric. Anything that threatens their lock-in must simply be erased from their iWorld. I'm all for quality standards, and I'd happily cheer Apple on if that's what they were trying to bring to their platform, but it isn't.

Even I would say that's a demented "I hate Apple!" rant. Elaborate?

[Edited by - zyrolasting on June 21, 2010 9:52:42 PM]

Quote: Original post by zyrolasting

Quote: Apple isn't user centric, it's Apple centric. Anything that threatens their lock-in must simply be erased from their iWorld. I'm all for quality standards, and I'd happily cheer Apple on if that's what they were trying to bring to their platform, but it isn't.

Even I would say that's a demented "I hate Apple!" rant. Elaborate?

Flash

other stories of selective and inconsistent app censorship (specifically against apps that compete with apple's own apps) can be found on google.

edit: on topic with the title change, all for profit corporations have the same philosophy

Quote: Original post by Valderman

Quote: Original post by stimarco
<massive wall of text about how Apple brings users salvation from oppressive, evil, incompetent developers>

I don't quite see how arbitrary restrictions on what you can and can't do with your own devices or censoring content is for the benefit of the user.

Really? Guess I need to have some strong words with Indesit and Dyson then. Last time I looked, they didn't let just anyone build and install apps on their devices either. And good luck building native code apps for the Nokia 2630.

Oh, wait: you think that, because the iPhone and iPad have CPUs and screens, you have an inalienable right to stomp all over Apple's own corporate philosophy. You sincerely believe your approach to software design and development is the One True Way.

Good luck with that.

People buy Apple's stuff precisely because it has consistent user interfaces.

I happen to be a fan of good design. I couldn't give a shit who produces it, but I've yet to see anything from Apple's rivals of late which seriously competes with them at this level. Only Nokia seem to come close with their low-end phones, though their smart-phones have been miserable.

Quote:
I also don't see how forcing developers to use outdated tools and placing other arbitrary restrictions on their development process, thereby making development slower, more expensive and more error prone, benefits the user.

Outdated? Objective-C 2.0 is "outdated" how, exactly? And the rest of Apple's tools are pretty good too.

It's all wrapped around the GCC suite, so you can use whatever IDE you damned well please if you don't mind losing the advantages of XCode, the debugging and instrumentation tools, and Interface Builder.

Personally, I find Objective-C a breeze after having to fight the chimera that is C++ for so many years. Obj-C has a refreshing simplicity in its design.

Quote: (from Zyrolasting):
We heard a story in class of a person getting their app denied because of button placement.

You still don't get it, do you?


Apple were right to deny that app. They already had a 12" stack of Human Interface Guidelines in the 1980s—long before good design was even fashionable—and they haven't gotten any less anal about interface design since then. Good user interface design is required. It is NOT optional.

I, a developer who has been programming, designing, documenting and developing software since the days of the Sinclair ZX81, agree with Apple on this. Because the code is NOT all there is to an application. (And, before you ask, yes: I did once think as you do. But not for nearly 20 years.)

Once upon a time, the code was all you needed. It ran on operating systems with CLIs. The code usually took input, crunched it, and spat out a result, with minimal interaction between the code and the user. These programs would be written and operated by people expert with the computers of the day.

But now it's 2010. In case you hadn't noticed, we've moved on a bit since those days of CLIs and teletypes.

Anyone designing applications with poor, or inconsistent, user interfaces today is doing it wrong. End of. No excuses.

User Experience and Interaction Design is a known science. There are textbooks on it and everything. Read some. Please.

Quote: Apple were right to deny that app. They already had a 12" stack of Human Interface Guidelines in the 1980s—long before good design was even fashionable—and they haven't gotten any less anal about interface design since then. Good user interface design is required. It is NOT optional.

It never was. You are still running on an entirely juvenile "I love Apple" rave, and are assuming they are the keyholders to design in general. It takes a closed mind to assume that design stops at Apple. We all want a good design... Some of us just want more thing visible.

Quote: Anyone designing applications with poor, or inconsistent, user interfaces today is doing it wrong. End of. No excuses. User Experience and Interaction Design is a known science. There are textbooks on it and everything. Read some. Please.

I have. I've been praised for clean designs before. You still think I am 100% against design. I'm not. No one here is. I do not have anything against design. I can't say that enough, apparently. I do not agree with Apple's approach to implementing their philosophy. In your eyes, I am an ignorant fool for wanting something different than what Apple provides. Please quit bashing me with a subjective design crusade. Even people fluent in sciences can disagree on what an abstract concept is.

I plan to do things differently from other companies. Design and Creativity are on two sides of a spectrum. If you have too much of one, you lose more of the other. I think Apple concentrates too much on design, which causes a loss in creative freedom on the user's end. If you can't agree with that, at least stop letting me know about it. I get an email every time you wave your arms around and throw a tantrum. You are close minded if you promote Apple and bash everyone else because they (god forbid) don't agree with you.

I think Apple, Microsoft and the hacker community are lacking in some areas. I want to be the person to provide what they won't. Now, If I really am the conservative moron you claim I am, I'll find that out. I never stop learning. Apparently you stopped learning a long time ago.

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care

Quote: Original post by zyrolasting

Quote: Apple isn't user centric, it's Apple centric. Anything that threatens their lock-in must simply be erased from their iWorld. I'm all for quality standards, and I'd happily cheer Apple on if that's what they were trying to bring to their platform, but it isn't.

Even I would say that's a demented "I hate Apple!" rant. Elaborate?

Flash

...sucks. On OS X, it's buggy, slow and shit. Always has been. And it's not exactly rock-solid on certain other platforms I could mention either. In fact, it has a terrible reputation among Mac owners.

Adobe also haven't been brilliant at supporting the Apple platform in the past—it took them forever just to catch up with the move to Intel CPUs, let alone 64-bit support. (And let's not mention their video editing apps, which they pulled entirely for some years.)

They're a fair-weather developer at best. Why should Apple assume they can commit to their platform and write an iPhone plug-in worth a damn when they've yet to demonstrate that ability on a platform Apple have had since 1984?

Nor is this a simple "Apple vs. Adobe" war: It's just a pragmatic business decision. OS X uses PDF in its display sub-system. It's why PDF creation is built-in on Macs. If Adobe and Apple were really that petty, this wouldn't be the case any longer.

Apple could also have done what they did for Java and written their own SWF-interpreting plugin, but they chose not to.

The problem is the SWF format itself: It's not owned by Apple, so they don't have any control over its evolution and future direction. They've been stung by this in the past with the PowerPC processor series, forcing them to make the move to Intel. I can well understand why they don't want to go through that again.

Nor do they want "lowest-common-denominator" applications appearing on their flagship devices which simply port UI paradigms from other platforms. Design is the primary differentiator—the USP—for Apple's hardware. Flash apps would dilute that.

Finally, Flash isn't an "application". It's a plugin. There's no App Store or similar mechanism for adding these to the iDevices, so Apple would have to build some infrastructure for it. Every time Flash were updated, Apple would have to roll it into a version update for their iDevices—and any apps written for the newer version of Flash would not run on iDevices running older versions, requiring additional customer support expenses.


Why go to all that effort when easier, cheaper alternatives are available?

Flash was conceived in an age before broadband and streamed media. It was originally a vector animation plugin; video and audio streaming were added much later. But HTML 5, with CSS 3, etc. can do vector animation. And video streaming. And a hell of a lot more. No plugins required. For all the occasionally misleading hype from Jobs and his marketing team, HTML 5 and its associated technologies is simply the better, simpler solution.

Apple have done technology switches like this before, pushing USB and ditching the floppy disk drive long before any of their competitors. (Take a look at the original iMac if you don't believe me. Note, too, the criticisms it received from reviewers of the day. This HTML 5 storm is no different.)

Quote: Original post by stimarco
(snip)

If you're done ranting about user interfaces, which I've already stated is a laudable strong point of Apple's, would you please adress the other issues I pointed out?

I don't think I have an unalienable right to stomp over Apple's philosophy, whatever that's supposed to mean, I'm merely questioning the usefulnes of Apple dictating everything about third party development from a consumer perspective. Do developers really automagically write better programs with better UIs if restricted to C/C++/ObjC? How would Python, Lisp, Haskell, Ruby, Java, etc. lead to worse programs? Apple could ensure the same level of quality by specifying an ABI and banning anyone who strays from it (by using private iOS APIs for example) but they don't. More significantly, they do manual QC on all third party programs; surely this would catch any bad apples regardless of implementation language?

Of course, Apple have every right to do this; it's their platform and it makes business sense to do anything you can to disrupt cross platform development when you're the entrenched force in the market. Claiming it's for the sake of the user though, that's just naive.

Quote: Original post by zyrolasting

Quote: Apple were right to deny that app. They already had a 12" stack of Human Interface Guidelines in the 1980s—long before good design was even fashionable—and they haven't gotten any less anal about interface design since then. Good user interface design is required. It is NOT optional.

It never was. You are still running on an entirely juvenile "I love Apple" rave, and are assuming they are the keyholders to design in general. It takes a closed mind to assume that design stops at Apple. We all want a good design... Some of us just want more thing visible.

No. Apple have their own design rules. Their own "House style", which underpins all their decisions.

Some of these rules are, of necessity, arbitrary. Colours, button designs, look-and-feel, all need to be consistent, and someone has to lay down the basic thematic stuff—the "Thy Scroll Bars Shall Be Blue And Sort Of Aquatic-ish" foundations on which the rest of the GUI guidelines are built.

Quote: I have. I've been praised for clean designs before. You still think I am 100% against design. I'm not. No one here is.

Could have fooled me.

Quote: I do not agree with Apple's approach to implementing their philosophy.

No. You still don't get it: If Apple's guidelines say, "Thy "OK" Buttons Must Be Placed X% From The Right Margin", that's what you're REQUIRED to do. If you aren't willing to comply with their rules, you don't get to play in their sandbox. It really IS that simple.

YOU might have other ideas about how UI design should be done. You may disagree with Apple entirely, or only slightly. But your opinion matters not one whit. It's their damned baby. Their house. Their rules. Not yours.

This is the price you pay to develop for any platform. Not just Apple's.

Try walking into a shop sometime and see how far you get telling the owner how to do his job. Trust me, they're unlikely to take it well. Why do you expect Apple—or, indeed, any other corporation—to be any different?


There are plenty of alternative platforms for you to try your UI design experiments on. Use one of those. Prove Apple wrong by beating them at their own game.

Or just carry on whining about how "unfair" the universe is on these forums.

Your call.

Quote: Of course, Apple have every right to do this; it's their platform and it makes business sense to do anything you can to disrupt cross platform development when you're the entrenched force in the market. Claiming it's for the sake of the user though, that's just naive.

Right. It's also naive to assume design stops at the user-interface, stimarco. Would you rather see convoluted, inconsistent source code? ...Or would you rather see code that looks more like English? When solving a problem or approaching a goal, design brings us sanity by cutting us a clear path to accomplish our objectives. It doesn't matter what activity we are participating in or what we are trying to implement.

Quote: There are plenty of alternative platforms for you to try your UI design experiments on. Use one of those. Prove Apple wrong by beating them at their own game. Or just carry on whining about how "unfair" the universe is on these forums.

I already said I was trying to compete. Besides, you did 400 percent more whining than I ever did.

Quote: No. You still don't get it: If Apple's guidelines say, "Thy "OK" Buttons Must Be Placed X% From The Right Margin", that's what you're REQUIRED to do. If you aren't willing to comply with their rules, you don't get to play in their sandbox. It really IS that simple.

I do get it. I don't want to play in their sandbox right now. Seems fair to me. This was already stated, but you still ignore that in order to make me look like a bad guy. Neither of us will make any progress if you continue flaming and making false accusations.

[Edited by - zyrolasting on June 22, 2010 11:19:49 AM]