

Bravo, Apple - bensummers
http://gamehaxe.com/2010/04/10/bravo-apple/

======
reitzensteinm
I think it's dangerous to try to attempt humorous sarcasm if you can't pull it
off. I agree with the guy, but this is painful to read.

Thoughtful analysis trumps cheap shots even when you're in the right.

~~~
neonfunk
It's exactly this kind of sarcasm I avoid when replying to someone I disagree
with (HN has definitely helped me mature comments-wise). It antagonizes the
opposite party, preventing a rational debate.

There are plenty of smart people who disagree with you. Assuming the answer is
obvious harms your argument. (I have a personal exception for tea baggers.)

~~~
jerf
Your attempt at an aura of wisdom is rather sullied when you tar half of a
country with a crude sexual epitaph. (Or are you perhaps one of the apparently
large number of people who are unaware of what "tea bagger" actually means?)

I suggest that your "maturity" is still perhaps not to the point where you
should be lecturing others quite yet.

~~~
cgranade
Given that "teabaggers" is a moniker that the Tea Party adopted for
themselves, it's not "tarring" anyone. Moreover, the Tea Party astroturf group
clearly does not command anywhere near half of a country. I don't think that
neonfunk in any way sullied himself.

~~~
jerf
Yes, a mostly right/libertarian protest movement adopted a crude sexual term
of their _own free will_. That makes lots of sense, for "those sorts of
people", they're all about the crude sexual innuendos. (Given the likely way
you feel about "those sorts of people", that doesn't fit at all.)

Sorry, it turns out you are right, it's more like a quarter:
[http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-
Mainst...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-
Demographics.aspx) Still way too many people to be tarring with a brush while
claiming to be rational about disagreement.

The politics of the tea party are not my concern here. My point is that you
shouldn't claim to be open to disagreement, except for that thing over there
that commands the "support" of tens of millions of people. That's simply
called not being open to disagreement. Honestly, that's fine; I doubt there's
anybody here who is actually open to every argument you can find 25% of a
country or world to agree to. Just don't pretend otherwise. As that link
shows, there's no obvious "well, that's just the stupid people" argument
available, either.

(I do draw the line at the "supported by millions of people", though of course
I can't draw a bright shining line, because there are practical limits; one
need not spend a lot of time pondering one guy's theories about the Time Cube.
But dismissing entire quarters of a country at a time isn't anywhere near the
line.)

~~~
cgranade
If they actually had a coherent policy position to disagree with, that'd be
one thing. I will happily be dismissive of a group that has no coherent stance
on any issue. That's not being dismissive of disagreement, that's being
dismissive of patent madness.

By analogy, should I also not be dismissive of creationism, which fails to
postulate a single verifiable claim which has not already been disproved? If I
am to be rational, then I must also be able to expect at least some baseline
of rationality from those I converse with.

In summary, yes, I am open to disagreement, but I'm not open to be respectful
of groups which have nothing with which I can even in principle disagree.

~~~
dschobel
I don't mean to interrupt you guys but you're arguing politics on a technology
site. Please stop.

~~~
jerf
I'm not, actually. Check my messages again. I'm arguing about claiming to be
open minded while dismissing large swathes of people.

Apparently, it wasn't a favored group of people by HN standards, because if
someone had come on and said the same thing about Democrats and I had been
standing up for Democrats, I guarantee I would have been upmodded to the sky.
But "not the favored group of people" is exactly who you need to be listening
to if you're going to be "open minded". Smacking someone down for merely
suggesting that if you are open minded you shouldn't be insulting the people
who disagree with you is demonstrating the very sort of _poser_ open
mindedness that I'm speaking out against.

And I choose and emphasize the word "poser" quite deliberately. Everybody
knows they're supposed to say they are "open minded". Few actually do it, but
everybody sure does claim it!

------
raganwald
"There is no room in this factory for levity, no matter how weak." --I Love
Lucy, 1952.

I'm up for satire, but to qualify for my admiration, I'm looking for the
satire to address both the action and the motivation of the party being
skewered.

In this case, making fun of the "no other languages" clause is totally fair
game, but by characterizing it as an attempt to weed out wimpy developers it
is attacking a straw man instead of addressing Apple's desire to defend
control of their own platform against encroachment by Adobe and others.

------
akadien
I disagree with Reitzensteinm. It's brilliant sarcasm and deserves every
upvote.

~~~
sorbus
... I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I had the same problem with
the article for the first two paragraphs, though, so yeah ...

------
swombat
Well, the first effect I see of this new clause is that Adobe have finally
suddenly figured out how to export to HTML5 instead of just SWF.

Not bad for a few lines of english added to an obscure document.

~~~
stratospark
Sorry, but your reasoning is just plain wrong in a number of ways.

I saw news about plans for Creative Suite being able to export to HTML5 months
ago. Adobe knows that that Flash is going to lose market share, they're smart
enough to see the writing on the wall and prepare accordingly. Their designer
tools don't have to be tied to Flash's fate. I think it's beautiful that the
same tools can theoretically target Flash Player, HTML5, native iPhone,
Android, etc. Everything is just an abstraction to ones and zeroes in the end.

The first effect of Apple's clause has been to brew up a shitstorm among
developers who understand how computation works and how arbitrary business
practices aren't aligned with technical reality.

------
slashdotter
This was actually extremely thoughtful and brilliant. The shots are not cheap,
they are dead-on. Bravo, Gamehaxe!

------
jsz0
I realize this is supposed to be satire but I think it's not too healthy to
obsess/rage over something you can easily avoid. Go download the Android SDK,
BBOS SDK or WebOS SDK. Unlike almost any time in the past the barrier of entry
to different platforms is ridiculously low. My personal theory is the success
of the App Store and iPhone OS devices is creating this ethical rift in people
who used to be able to see the computing world in very black & white terms.
Suddenly they are confronted with the idea that maybe there are deep issues in
an open platform that generally make the user feel stupid, confused, and
frustrated leading them to be less likely to actually use the device and put
money into developer's pockets. It's the only reasonable explanation I can
come up with to understand why people obsess over everything iPhone OS
related. Otherwise they'd just man up and go write Android apps?

~~~
ffalt
Excuse me, where can I download the significant investment I've made to the
iPlatform (_not_ the only platform i was targeting). My consequence is to
leave Apple and its customers in their walled garden. Indeed I'm going to
write for Android and Maemo...

------
alrex021
Bravo Apple:

 _... By raising the barrier of entry, and only permitting "real" programming
languages (ie, "C" based ones)_

Frankly I think, and I'm sure many here would agree, this is bullshit.

[edit] The rest of the post only gets worse. Very little facts and plenty of
noise.

~~~
xal
Fascinating. The above post should act as a reminder that Sarcasm on the
internet is really not a good idea.

Don't feel bad, it's never the readers fault when sarcasm isn't obvious,
that's always the fault of the writer ( usually the mistake is to employ
sarcasm in first place ).

~~~
gloob
Frankly, my biggest complaint about the article was that the sarcasm was far
too obvious to be funny. Not that I disagree with the idea that _Sarcasm on
the internet is really not a good idea_.

~~~
devinj
Yeah, that was my only complaint. Satire is so much better when halfway
through you go, "Oh, I get it!". This is just simple, if fun, sarcastic
ranting.

And I am extremely surprised there's a person out there that didn't get it.

Sarcasm on the internet is _totally_ a good idea!

------
donaq
What a wonderfully positive and constructive take on the subject. Way to go,
champ. You go get them, tiger.</tongue in cheek>

------
klochner
Given the volume of idiotic blog writing, I hope I'm forgiven for giving up on
this one after the first three lines (and subsequently wondering wtf all the
HN comments were about).

