The iPhone and all the other Apple products that this post is referring to are end user product not OEMs, which totally invalidates your argument. Also, Apple is no longer the underdog startup that you fantasize about. That’s right.. it’s now a big evil money making corporation that lights cigars with billion dollar bills. Most of the people who buy Apple do so primarily because it has the name Apple on it. From your bitter post I assume that last statement also applies to you.

I am not arguing with Apples way of doing business, it has it’s place for geeks who still want to pretend that they’re cool. It just doesn’t appeal to most geeks who have accepted themselves for who they are.

Elvis isn’t on the moon yet, but I’m checking…

Ta,

Mark

For the Adobe Carbon vs. Cocoa.
Carbon was an API set to simplify the porting of existing applications to OS X, as Objective C (Cocoa) is different from C – C++.
It was clear from the beginning that Carbon would be dropped sooner or later. Now Apple decided to drop 64 bit support and Adobe is not ready for the switch. Of course, Apple could have say before to Adobe that it would drop 64 bit support in Carbon but at the same time Adobe would have better switch to Cocoa long time ago.
So, the next OS X will be Intel only, Cocoa 64bit and Adobe will release CS4 Carbon 32bit ppc and intel and later CS5 64bit Cocoa, probably Intel only.
It’s not so bad in my opinion.

Which means they are legally responsible for copyright infringements or damage to the iPhone caused by a third party. Apple is better off, legally, only allowing certain application on the iPhone and allowed freetards get their hands on any application from somewhere else. An unsigned and untested application can cause any amount of damage on the iPhone, of course, ( since it runs as root) so there would be even more fretard whining then. So I suppose they should stay where they are now – jail the phone at your own risk, fretards. They might say.

“has had to port from m68k to PPC then to OS X (Carbon) then to ia32… ”

Most of that is recompiling. Unless adobe writes shite code. Which they do. The port to Cocoa is far more significant, of course, but there are other ways besides Carbon to write a C based application in OS X and have been for a long time – core foundation ( which includes graphic libraries). In many cases Carbons just sits on top of these libraries. The old school Adobe programmers couldnt be assed.

Anyw linux-heads, this has to said: no one is really gunning for your custom. No business model ever suceeds on giving away free stuff to funny looking bearded chaps ( well, maybe the bead industry).

You want free software, and to bang around making your own computers from straw and carrots so be it, but your voice – as shrill as it is on the interwab – is justly ignored in the boardroom.

Apple did approach Verizon about the iPhone. This is public knowledge. They didn’t want to go with it because Apple wanted to dictate the terms. Unlike Verizon who wants to dictate to the phone manufacturers all the time. Verizon (like ATT, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc) decides what features work and don’t work on the phones they put on their network. ATT decided to take a chance. And it looks like a great one. Do you think, knowing what they know now, that Verizon wouldn’t have wanted a 2nd chance at the iPhone? Verizon dissed Apple. Plain and simple.

The Adobe issue is their problem. Yes, Apple changes things quite often in order to stay competitive. Apple is the small player in the OS market, They have to change. I understand Adobe’s position. But I have read many articles on Ars Technica about 64-bit, and the bottom-line is that 64-bit does not increase speed as much as it takes advantage of more memory. So 16 GBs on a Mac Pro isn’t enough for you?

Lastly, the MobileMe issue has been addressed publicly. Companies aren’t perfect. If you don’t or didn’t have a .Mac account then what is it to you? Do you think Apple purposely dropped the ball on MobileMe?

I hear these kind of comments all the time by a tiny percentage of the tech community. They have to have everything their way or it sucks. NO company can make things freely available AND control the quality of the experience. Linux is the best platform for people like you, but obviously it isn’t for everyone. I don’t have time to write the software for a driver for a video card that I want to use (if one did not exist). Most Mac users would rather give up the “open platform” you speak of in order to have greater ease of use and functionality. So that makes Apple a bad company?

Apple makes a great phone (I have one) and it looks like many millions of others agree. Sorry you don’t think 1000 apps (and growing; many of which are free) is enough for you.

I have no problem with the way UI of Palm OS. I find in very functional, and easier to use and navigate than Symbian, and I wouldn’t touch WM with a 10ft pole.

~S

And it’s not just a case of “They have to port Photoshop to two new platforms”. You’ll probably find that most of their other software is full of Carbon too.

@Byron: Photoshop is stable in Carbon, so it’s not a case of “I’d rather have a stable 64-bit in Cocoa”.

In any case, Adobe didn’t listen to the Cocoa preaching. So, screw them! I’d rather have a stable 64 bit in Cocoa than keep dragging the Carbon legacy dinosaur.

Is it possible that Apple has ever done anything wrong?

And how do you know that there wasn’t any discussion between Apple and Adobe about this topic? We can only assume that there have been none since the CS4 isn’t going to be 64-bit for the mac.

And anyway the 64-bit advantages in speed wise are still very little.

Apple has two major app collection still on the carbon: Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite (and even iTunes and Finder are still carbon). Though this decision about dropping 64-bit support from carbon was a big one, I still don’t think that was a wrong one.

Consequently, Apple’s users pay the price since they’ll have to wait until CS5 for 64-bit. Meanwhile, I’ll be enjoying the advantages of 64-bit Photoshop on my Vista machine.

And I can’t see what all the fuss is about App store being closed and no one can submit their apps in there.
The Local bar is closed as well, you have to be 18 or over to get there and they can throw you out if they see that necessary.
In the same way Apple is gate keeping app store out of harmful apps. (Well, they should be – There is an App called “I am rich”, which is $1000 and does nothing.)

Looks like many has this obsession that everything apple makes is somehow bad – The company makes very risky decisions and mostly succeed and sometimes does not (like say, G4 Cube or iPod Hi-Fi).

Apple sucks, I will never buy any of their products.

Here is another reason of why I will never buy, recommend or support anything of Apple:

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1831236

It sounds like you aren’t familiar with the Adobe 64-bit Mac problem. Apple surprised Adobe by not telling them that they weren’t going to make Carbon 64-bit as they had announced at the previous year’s WWDC. Consequently CS4 is going to be 32-bit on Mac only but 32 or 64-bit on Windows. Adobe has to migrate a ton of code over to Cocoa.

For the official Adobe answer check this link out. Especially number two and three.

What we really need is some company, that does exactly what Apple does, aka make closed systems, but be more developer friendly and stop policing the users. If today, some company releases a device that does nothing more than what the iPhone does, but allows for more open developer environment, I can bet that they would take a significant chunk of developers and users from Apple.

Until that happens, Apple is not going to change the way it does business.