Mark Munz wrote: > Fact is that Apple does a crap job communicating with developers. > Always has. Apple has returned to a very arrogant state where it feels > it no longer needs to actively listen to developers. I saw this in the > 90s as well. From my perspective, there is a real sense of déjà vu > here.
They've always been like that, I wonder why everyone is surprised. The only times they didn't behave like a monopolist was when they couldn't afford it. Yeah, I'm a cynic. Ray Barber wrote: > Apple was very cool and wise to include Xcode/development with the OS X > install (everything is free for a nominal fee). Then they turn around and > charge us to be members of the ADA just so we can get builds. Perhaps they > felt that by charging would only attract serious developers. Then again, it > could be just another way to earn a buck - and a lot of them. Keep in mind that developer tools used to be a business. A small company named Metrowerks could probably tell you a story or two (but their assets and people have been sold off to the four winds by now). Apple was giving their dev tools away for free to get more developers at a time where they needed them (even MS charges for its dev tools -- ignoring special deals and rebates). > My point is simply that. Given the content of this thread, we are simply > left to assume what Apple is up to. And it's almost always the decision is > made, and the idea is implemented before anyone has any input. By then, > we're left to either embrace it, or resign. I shudder to think the latter. Why do you expect to have input into the inner workings of a company? Have you bought voting stock? Also, this is exactly the mystique that Apple uses to its advantage in marketing. It would be highly inconsistent (and torpedo that) if they suddenly started a public discussion. Do I like it? Not any more than you. But it's not at all surprising. -- Uli Kusterer "The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere..."
