1. mornhavon's Avatar
    I cannot even imagine a scenario where the iOS runtime would be made available on other platforms.
    This may be wildly off-topic, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.

    Although I think that Apple ever releasing their runtime for use by other platforms is a near-impossibility, there are some rough methods of translating iOS apps for use on Android (Cycada) or BB (Brine) that have been demoed (and are possibly still under development, at least in the case of Cycada).

    While I don't expect an iOS "player" to become mainstream, because it would likely be even worse than the early Android runtime for BB devices, don't you think it has a shot at seeing the light of day in an unofficial capacity? I know it would require developers to publish their iOS apps to an alternate store or require users to "use their own" .ipa files, but it would sure be an interesting exercise.

    Perhaps more importantly, would it have even a chance of surviving Apple's legal barrage? It seems to be mostly kernel & API translation, which should be legal by my understanding.
    03-16-15 02:17 PM
  2. JeepBB's Avatar
    From what I recall (it's been a while now and it's old enough news that I'm just not in a mood to go research it all over again), the issue was that Microsoft was charging more for OEM licenses of Windows if the OEM bundled a browser other than Internet Explorer with their initial setup and install CD's (though MSFT interpreted it as giving a discount to those OEMs who made IE front and center). Which in the EU was determined anti-competitive behavior. So basically, anybody like HP, Gateway, etc... who sold Windows machines with Netscape/Mozilla pre-installed, would have to pay MSFT more for each PC shipped/sold than OEMs that shipped PCs with only IE.

    A year or two later, the EU also mandated that MSFT had to offer an IE free version of Windows (the direct end user purchase of the OS this time, nothing to do with OEM bundles), but I really never understood the logic in that decision. I think that was more of a "flexing of muscles" move in the aftermath of their previous bout, since I couldn't think of a single (IMHO) logical reason to require it.
    Yes, that sounds about right... As you say, it was all a long time ago

    I tend to agree about the logic in your final paragraph, I reckon it just became a pissing contest between the EU and MS.
    03-16-15 02:27 PM
  3. ljfong's Avatar
    Perhaps more importantly, would it have even a chance of surviving Apple's legal barrage? It seems to be mostly kernel & API translation, which should be legal by my understanding.
    Not a chance something like this would survive Apple's legal barrage. Apple is very protective of its brand, ecosystem and pretty much anything it makes. Remember the saga of Palm Pre back in the days of masquerading as iPod-compatible device in its USB interoperability so that the handset can sync musics with iTunes directly. It became a cat and mouse game between Palm and Apple with Apple breaking the compatibility with each iTunes release. The matter finally went to USB consortium and the consortium ruled in favor of Apple. With Apple, as long as you follow the rules and never challenge the system, Apple is willing to guarantee your enjoyment of your device.
    JeepBB and mornhavon like this.
    03-16-15 02:53 PM
  4. fishlove73's Avatar
    Another question is why would a developer limit their income to 1 platform? Wouldn't you want as many customers as possible? Unless of course Google and Apple make em sign contracts....

    ~Better with Blackberry~
    03-16-15 02:54 PM
  5. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    Another question is why would a developer limit their income to 1 platform? Wouldn't you want as many customers as possible? Unless of course Google and Apple make em sign contracts....
    Developers limit themselves to what they deem a reasonable investment. Sure, developing for an additional platform can and may increase their user base. But will that increase be suitable to justify the additional development and support costs? Oftentimes it's not. A successful business doesn't expand just because it can, but because it's profitable. In fact, many businesses implode because they expanded when they shouldn't have.



    Penned via Tapatalk
    JeepBB likes this.
    03-16-15 03:22 PM
  6. mornhavon's Avatar
    Another question is why would a developer limit their income to 1 platform? Wouldn't you want as many customers as possible? Unless of course Google and Apple make em sign contracts....
    Developers can hit 97% of the market developing for Android & iOS. If they want to hit 99%, they spend up to 50% more time & resources to develop for Windows Phone. For most developers, it simply isn't economical to develop for BB's market share (around 0.4% and still declining, last I heard).
    JeepBB likes this.
    03-16-15 03:23 PM
  7. JeepBB's Avatar
    This may be wildly off-topic, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.

    Although I think that Apple ever releasing their runtime for use by other platforms is a near-impossibility, there are some rough methods of translating iOS apps for use on Android (Cycada) or BB (Brine) that have been demoed (and are possibly still under development, at least in the case of Cycada).

    While I don't expect an iOS "player" to become mainstream, because it would likely be even worse than the early Android runtime for BB devices, don't you think it has a shot at seeing the light of day in an unofficial capacity? I know it would require developers to publish their iOS apps to an alternate store or require users to "use their own" .ipa files, but it would sure be an interesting exercise.

    Perhaps more importantly, would it have even a chance of surviving Apple's legal barrage? It seems to be mostly kernel & API translation, which should be legal by my understanding.
    I'm sure that getting iOS Apps to run (reliably and well) on another platform would be an interesting tech'y challenge... and good fun for all involved. I wish such developments all success.

    I'm equally sure that if such a development ever looked like escaping into the mainstream, or if somebody started making money from selling the iOS player, then the full might of Apple's legal power would crush it like a bug.

    As the poster above me said, Apple's ecosystem is too precious to risk losing control of it. If a situation ever developed where you could run Apple Apps without needing to first buy an iDevice, or where alternative iOS AppStores became available... well, that would be unbelievably bad for Apple, and they'd *never* allow it to happen.

    A few guys in a basement building an iOS player to impress their geeky friends (I say that as a bit of a geek myself, coz I'd certainly be impressed! ) is all it will ever be allowed to be. If Apple ever perceives it as a threat... it'll be stopped. At the very least, Apple would tie the Devs up in legal red tape for decades and make the costs of fighting Apple impossible.

    In a similar vein, I reckon that's Google's strategy with BB, Tizen and Jolla's access to the Google Play Store. I'm convinced that Google know how many users of other platforms, use their store. If those user numbers become too large, or those other platforms started to officially promote that access beyond the underground geeks that are willing to jump through the hoops... then Google would find a way to stop that access. Rapidly.

    So, much as my inner-geek might enjoy seeing an iOS player... it'll never go beyond an experimental stage.
    mornhavon likes this.
    03-16-15 03:33 PM
232 ... 8910

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-22-15, 01:33 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-06-15, 02:35 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-05-15, 07:47 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-05-15, 03:07 PM
  5. The BlackBerry Slider envisioned through new renders
    By CrackBerry News in forum CrackBerry.com News Discussion & Contests
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-05-15, 01:40 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD