Quote:With apple it is trying to turn the free market that is software development - where developers decide which are the "best" & most suitable langauages, platforms etc to create an App with 'x' requirements - into some sort of "state run dictatoriship" but in this case "company run dictatorship",

I'd be careful with the word 'dictatorship'. Apple does not have nearly enough market share to be called a monarchy like MS was. Non-standard contributions are a huge problem that each of the big 3 are guilty of. I never heard of a UDID before this course.

Quote:its all free my only limits are my brains & effort.

Apple does charge for convenience, and I assume they help market your app. Even so, it is true that there are tools available to do what Apple does. I get SO tired of the same solutions to the same problems.

Man, we've been off on a hell of a tangent! Apple was just an example I used to describe a problem all corporations take part in.

Let me recap here:

There is a program over in the school I'm in that is trying to teach how to program on the iPhone. The instructors are affiliated with Apple, and did almost no teaching. The agreement I signed mentioned nothing about being put in some pitch, but that's where I was tossed.

The reason I bitched and moaned was because both Apple and the university did not keep up with their side of the agreement. Instead, they tried to sell me things I did not need or want. Yeah, THAT'S not news. [rolleyes]

Still, some have told me to "chill" like they'd handle this any better. The program is taking Computer Science freshman and advancing their knowledge in a biased direction. The trade is abstract, yet Apple claims use of the word "app" and uses their products almost as if they are the whole of the industry in every form. Students are buying devices they do not need under the impression that they need them for their own education. At least, that is what seems to be happening here.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think this is a problem. Unfortunately, the only thing I can do about it now is... bitch, really. [smile]

Quote:Original post by Antheus
Also, we have an orgy the day before.

I just hope the genders are more balanced this time.

Quote:Original post by zyrolastingI just... God, I can't think of a nice way to put it. Bottom line is, I see development in any form as more spontaneous and free than how I see Apple treat it.

Apple treat developers like they treat any other supplier. That was my point.

In the beginning, IT was, of necessity, dominated by the programmer. The hacker (in its original sense). The High Priests of the Temple Of Code.

The companies and corporations that grew up back then had the same fundamental attitude. They were almost always started by such programmers and hackers.

Microsoft are a developer tools and technologies company. Windows is a handy wrapper for all their developer technologies—.NET, DirectX, etc. Even Microsoft Office is, at heart, aimed at developers, not just end users. It's a platform in its own right. (OpenOffice.Org, please take note.)

The FSF / GNU movement—and that's all it is; they didn't actually invent open source, nor do they own copyright or patents on it—are hacker*-centric. They're all about the source code, which is something 99.999% of end users really don't give a flying f*ck about. UNIX is one mammoth hacker heaven of an OS. Unfortunately, this is also why it has singularly failed to make a dent in most of the consumer markets, except when used as an embedded OS.

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.

But Apple are the exception. They were always about the design. The end user. The programmer served the user, not the other way around. For many years, they didn't even have their own in-house development tools, preferring to rely on Metrowerks' Codewarrior suite. Apple are not development-focused, but product design focused. Their priority is that end user. Sure, they've lost their way occasionally, but this attitude has always been the key to Apple's successes.

Over the past decade or so, Apple's approach has gained increasing traction. No longer must users put up with "good enough". Good design has become mainstream, instead of merely an expensive optional extra. Customers are beginning to feel entitled to it as a default feature.

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.

OS X programmers are already used to this, however. And that's why I was so surprised by your opening outburst. I mean, seriously, none of this should be a surprise. Apple have never kept this sort of thing a secret. And the PR stuff is natural; check out MS' own certifications sometime. It's marketing, not formal education.

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 code is code, team is team, and bugs are bugs and deadlines are deadlines. One platform or another. Or are programmers actually expected to deal with anything Apple. Freelancer or self-employed perhaps, but to everyone else, Apple is easy as pie compared to bureaucracy of Microsoft.

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.

Seriously, this view of programmers is just too naive.

First of all, I apologize in advance for butting in, as I dont' possess neither the experience or knowledge of either one of you(Antheus and stimarco), but from what I've seen in my few years in software development, programmers are now at the very bottom of the barrel in most companies. When I tell people that I've finished a CS degree and have worked as a programmer, they go 'whoa yeah, computers are the future, you will always have a good job, blah blah blah'...they don't believe it when I say to them that most programmers I see are like the new proletariat amonst those that do mental work. They certainly don't have 10% of the status or salary of marketing or sales people in the company.

Now, I'm not saying we should go back to the times where programmers were the absolute dictators, but it definately sucks to be the one who actually makes the product, or a portion of it, and be seen like the most insignificant cog in the machine. Sure, I acknowledge the undeniable fact that today, sales and marketing departments are far more important than actual software quality in order to make good profit, but still things could be a little more balanced. At least, that's how I feel...I could be totally wrong and I could have those experiences just because I'm a sub-par programmer(which I am without a doubt, it's just that I'm not sure if that's the sole reason)...however I have talked to several veterans and they do get increasingly frustated too...