| |||||||||||||
Free is too expensive (Economist)Free is too expensive (Economist)Posted Apr 2, 2012 2:48 UTC (Mon) by jensend (guest, #1385)In reply to: Free is too expensive (Economist) by rqosa Parent article: Free is too expensive (Economist)
Your Java example is pretty clearly the exception rather than the rule. Apple treated Java worse than a red-headed stepchild for a very long time. I really think they must have had regularly scheduled meetings where they said "OK, what can we do to make our Java support even worse without ending up with people installing 3rd party JREs?"
In some ways it was a relief when Apple said they were dropping the JRE- by opening the way for Oracle and 3rd party JREs it made actually made it more likely, not less, that people would get reasonably up-to-date Java support.
Maybe one of the undisclosed conditions of Microsoft's life-saving investment in Apple back in the day was that Apple would backstab Sun on the Java issue.
(Log in to post comments)
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 2, 2012 9:17 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Maybe one of the undisclosed conditions of Microsoft's life-saving investment in Apple back in the day was that Apple would backstab Sun on the Java issue. I sincerely doubt it. Steve said it best himself: the Apple's motto is we cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. Of course it means that all other developers are at mercy of Apple which is hypocrisy of highest caliber, but this is how Apple operates. This meant that they must make sure there will be as few Java-based programs on MacOS as possible. No need to create insane Apple/Microsoft conspiracies (Microsoft backstabbed Apple exactly when five years passed as expected thus I doubt Apple and Microsoft had any obligations after that point).
|
|||||||||||||