The only important and relevant part of that, is the final phrase:
hinders the progress of the platform.
I'm familiar with that phrase already, from the Linux world. What it means, is that Steve wants native apps, where the iGadget is a full citizen target, rather than something written for some other system and then ported over.
I have apps on my Palm like that (ported over), and they stink.
But most importantly, Steve wants people developing for the iGadget, not merely porting generic apps from some other platform.
If the iGadget isn't the primary platform, then it becomes commoditized, and that's not something a hardware company looks forward to. Witness the IBM PC.
For better or worse, that's the issue here.
Cheers
This makes perfectly sense to me, much more than the post in dev/why? linked by Bruno.
Not being a developer, maybe I lack the specific knowledge to fully understand what the post at dev/why? says. But, if it is hard to maintain binary compatibility with flash layer - which, correct me if I am wrong, can itself be considered native - and consequently with all applications running on that layer, why would it be less difficult to maintain compatibility with hundred other native applications out there? What am I not understanding, or do I not know?
So far, if I get it right, it really seems to me that this is the same old strategic game of trying to make your proprietary technology a de-facto standard; strategy which is significantly compromised by any intermediary layer that allows an app to be developed for more than one OS and more than one hardware platform.
Previous Topic
Index
