"The issue is the closed graphics APIs." You, like many others I suspect, missed Apple'ds deprecation of the Cocoa Java bridge over 5 years ago. It was announced in the release notes for Tiger. Cocoa Java bridge? That'll be the 'close' graphics API'.
"TO expect Oracle to have to start this from scratch without access to the under-the-hood bits that the Apple JVM uses is madness." Why? I'd argue the opposite.
"Is Apple even a big enough market for Oracle to set about reproducing all that code?" I'd argue that if Linux is big enough, OS X is certainly big enough.
"If they are reliant on trying to essentially duplicate what Apple have already done – but without the kind of under-the-hood access that Apple have – well…would you invest those kind of resources for less than 10% global share?" That's an emotional strawman and it's not worthy of you. You cannot argue that Oracle are under no obligation to develop a JVM for OS X from scratch and then say:
"That said however, Apple are in a position of power over millions of users who are functionally dependant upon them. It is in my mind incumbent upon Apple to either release the code to the community or hand it over (likely with some strings attached) to a torch-bearer such as Oracle."
It smack of double standards. The way that I (and I'm sure a few others) see it is that Oracle are the custodians of Java. It is up to them to ensure it runs on other platforms. If they aren't prepared to support an Open JVM or build an official JVM for the Mac, then it's their problem, not Apple's. Apple are not, as you suggest, beholden to their customers to provide a runtime for someone else's product, however you try and spin it! Apple are no longer supply OS X with Flash pre-installed for the same reason that they have deprecated Java.
"Deprecating Java off the stack without formal announcement and a passing of the torch is simply abandoning your users." No. Not exactly. It's abandoning **your** users. No formal announcement on the future of Java has been announced and you are making some gross assumptions.
"If you honestly believe that the obligations a vendor like Apple has to its customers ends the instant money changes hands then we have some very deeply different life philosophies." This is another emotive strawman. The obligation is with the company that maintains Java, and that company is now Oracle. **If** Oracle can produce a JVM for Windows (**more** closed than OS X, with Microsoft possibly being more hostile toward Oracle in business terms) and they produce a JVM for Linux, then they should be responsible for a JVM on the Mac. It's not Apple's product to maintain. Simple as that.
"In my world-view Apple sells continual support and the concept of the system “just working” as part and parcel of the hook they use to lure in customers. That carries with it the responsibility to follow through with support and customer-focused management of situations exactly like this one." Sorry, but that's rubbish. Are Microsoft not under **exactly** the same obligation? Moreover, surely the maintainer of Java are obliged to make sure that Java runs on platform that their customers want it to?
"Doing the right thing while still absolving themselves of the responsibility for supporting Java is not remotely outside of Apple’s capabilities. It wouldn’t even cost them that much. (Scan the code for third-party copywritten bits and release to community or hand off to Oracle.) The only two explanations I can see for Apple’s actions are
A) This is a move to limit competition via a medium-term plan to remove Java from the Apple platform.
B) Apple’s customers mean so little to them that they simply aren’t worth the minimal effort to do right by them.
I don’t really care for either reason, however either or both would be perfectly consistent with Apple’s previous actions." The right thing? Oracle to come forward and announce their intentions for the Java platform on the Mac first.
"As to “not passing the torch being pure speculation,” well…Apple is certainly free to make an announcement and put everyone’s mind at ease in this matter." Again, the ball is **Oracle's** court, not Apple's.However you try and spin it (and there is an awful lot of spin) it is Oracle's product to support, not Apple's.
"Until then, there is simply no reason to assume they will do the right thing. There are plenty of reasons to assume they won’t. IN fact, the right thing would have been to make an announcement before formally deprecating Java, including a passing of the torch at the time. It is – to me – merely one more indication of how little that company values their customers." Can't agree with any of that. Surely the announcement that they are deprecating Java **in the next release** (not expected for release for about a year BTW) is plenty of notice? you seem desperate to jump on Apple's case about something and this has presented you with the opportunity.
"I am sorry if that ruffles feathers, but I really do hold companies – and individuals – to high standards. I have no time for greed or naked self-interest. If you commit to something then you follow through. That includes customer support." Java users are Oracle's customers not Apple's. Finally, the "I have no time for greed or **naked self-interest**" comment. With you on the greed, but business is business, the aim of which is to make more money than your competitor. The naked slf interest bit, did't you say that this would cause **you** headaches with your customers? how is this any different?