Apple and Oracle signed a significant open-source deal today which welcomed the Mac OS X maker into the OpenJDK club, which IBM joined last month. Under the agreement, Apple said it would divvy up most of the key components, tools and tech needed for a Java SE 7 implementation on the firm's Mac OS X platform. In October, …
Only a complete moron thought Apple was banning java from osx or something equally retarded. Theres absolutely 0 reason for Apple to be maintaining their own JVM as it only ever created downsides in the form of slow updates, potential compatability problems, and uneeded overhead at Apple. If you thought an official JVM wasn't coming you're really pretty stupid.
I thought it was likely that someone would step in, the real question was how well they would approximate the windowing idioms of OS X.
While I fully agree with your assessment that there being no incentive for Apple to maintain its own jvm was the primary motivation behind their announcement, the question is raised, well, who does have an incentive to apply resources and keep java up to date for Apple's users, scratch that, Mac-using java developers? (I'm one and I don't think java desktop apps are really widely used.)
So Oracle has decided that keeping the public version of java on OS X matters to them and Apple has worked out a deal where the new guardians may partake of the secret sauce. Works for me*.
* until it doesn't.
I told you. I won't anticipate an apology any time soon though.
OT: I think it's entirely reasonable move by Apple and it's the same approach they are starting to take with Flash on the Mac platform; in the longer term it would more secure for Apple's customers if the party responsible for technologies like Flash and Java handle updates. This makes sound business scene for Apple and Oracle too. Perhaps a few commenters were a little to quick with the bashing?
... that OS X is now sufficiently established that Apple are confident that Java will be delivered without them having to do it themselves, or that OS X is now sufficiently minor in their product line up that they're not that bothered if entrusting someone else to deliver Java backfires. Or, I guess, that the c.2000 guess that Java was going to be big on the desktop as soon as it was done well enough didn't pan out.
In any case, I think perhaps you've misunderstood the motivation of many of the posters, here on the Internet. They made up their mind about companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft long ago and the actual content of the stories doesn't really have a bearing on what they post.
Just because Apple realized that its customer base actually desired and required Java and (eventually) worked out something with Oracle to provide it does not in any way mean that they had originally planned to do anything other than screw their customers from the start.
As to Oracle providing Mac support either out of the generosity of their cold black heart or even because they think there is much money to be made there; I remain unconvinced. Whilst I have no need or desire to enter into yet another tedious debate when you and i obviously have very different philosophical beliefs, I still maintain that Apple handled this entire incident exceedingly poorly.
According to my belief system the proper way to deal with these issues would have been for apple to make a formal announcement at time of deprecation. This announcement should have included why they deprecated the technology and how they plan to ensure their extant customer base is looked after. If Apple didn’t have the Oracle deal in their pocket at the time, they should not have been ditching Java. If they did, it should have been formally announced at that time. No amount of argument, name calling or what-have-you will change my mind on that.
@ThomH: I think you are correct. Many people on the internet (including myself) have made up our minds about “companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft long ago.” Let me be absolutely, perfectly, crystal clear about how my mind is made about these (and any other) company: they exist to make money. They do not give a left-footed damn about their customers or userbase beyond what is necessary to keep them happy enough to continue buying product.
I am willing to give individual human beings the benefit of the doubt and believe that they are decent, compassionate and capable of both sympathy and empathy. I do not remotely believe the same thing of corporations. If a corporation (for whatever reason) wishes to come across as anything other than greedy, grasping and completely untrustworthy they have to prove it.
Unlike people, corporations do not get any benefit of the doubt from me. If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, I am sorry. I can and do trust individuals. Yet in my experience thus far with life “it’s not personal, it’s business” changes how individuals treat one another.
@edev: Apple was never banning Java from OSX. Apple was however ceasing to supply it. Apple also had not announced (until just now) any plans to ensure that it would be made available. Apple did not announce any plans to work with any other organization (be that Oracle or the open source community) to make their extant code available in order to ensure continuity.
To simply assume that “an official JVM would be forthcoming” in that environment is “stupid.” While it might be possible that it proved advantageous to Oracle to provide a JVM, until it was formally committed to assuming it would arrive as a matter of course is daft. It is not obviously to Oracle’s advantage to do so – most especially if they didn’t have Apple’s co-operation in the matter. It is far safer to assume that you will never receive support or assistance of any kind for a corporation – it is only rarely that you are otherwise surprised.
It did not necessarily make business sense for Oracle to waste the resources on providing a JVM to Apple if they were forced to work on the project in a vacuum. While it certainly made business sense for Apple to work with Oracle on the matter…”making business sense” isn’t always a guaranteed driver for Apple.
That is not, just by the by, a slam. What might seem like “making obvious business sense to us might still be far too short term thinking compared to Steve Jobs’s exceptionally good long term thinking. Finding a way to get Java off of Macs altogether holds at least as much promise in the long term as supporting it; it could be equally to Apple’s preference to work with Oracle to keep Java on the Macs or to murder it in the face.
Overall I am quite pleased that Oracle has made the decision to support Macs, but I remain firm in my beliefs that it was not a forgone conclusion. Despite the happy ending, I reiterate my belief that the entire incident was exceptionally poorly handled by Apple. Because of this, I will continue to recommend and work towards their replacement amongst my customer base. No matter what sort of name calling is employed by random posters on the Internet.
Poorly handled by Apple? Possibly. We may never know why they let everyone worry for three weeks before announcing their commitment to OpenJDK
It's obvious that they timed the deprecation announcement to coincide with the Mac AppStore announcement, to make it clear that the AppStore wouldn't support Java apps. That's no big loss however, as the AppStore is (primarily) for consumer applications, and Mac-specific ones at that, while Java is (primarily) for educational, scientific, professional and enterprise apps, and cross-platform ones at that.
Perhaps Apple were playing a game of brinkmansship and wanted to force Oracle to commit more resources to taking on support for the Mac OS X version. Perhaps Apple were surprised at the amount of negative feedback their announcement generated and had to backpeddle as fast as they could. Most likely it was just a matter of timing, as Apple have been quite consistent and insistent that they can't afford to let their own product development plans be governed by dependencies on third party technologies and release schedules that they have no control over (that's the main reason they dropped out of shows like MacWorld after all, because they didn't want to be tied to other people's schedules).
Either way, it doesn't really matter, as the outcome is better than anyone could hope for (a joint commitment from Apple and Oracle to support an open source implementation).
It was inevitable that there would be some solution along these lines however. Java is far, far too important a language for there not to have been. Even if their primary business is in consumer products, you can't really imagine Apple sitting by as universities and research institutes the world over recommend their staff and students NOT to buy Macs because they wouldn't be able to run the software they needed, can you?
Your argument doesn't support your conclusion. One company — Oracle — now controls the progress and ongoing availability of Java across Windows, OS X and Linux.
The only flaw in Apple's transition from supplying Java as part of the OS to the Oracle version being supplied has been a few weeks of uncertainty. Conversely, Microsoft's (with Sun) involved a protracted court battle and a pitched war for hearts and minds.
Supposing you don't trust Oracle, all non-Oracle Java implementations share the distinction of originating from the UNIX-associated world. Of Windows, OS X and Linux, only one is notably not even attempting to be a UNIX. Conversely, only OS X is a fully certified UNIX.
Since you don't claim any unique feelings about any of the big commercial companies, we can rule out any distinction in your judgment between how Microsoft and Apple will act in the future.
Therefore, the conclusion that you need to warn your customers off Apple only is untenable if the rest of your arguments are taken at face value.
Boy, you sure write a lot of text for what it clearly just a case of Apple scheduling an announcement on Java support but did not get the legal agreement with Oracle finished in time. Happens in business all the time, it's not evil or even planned. The legal agreement between Apple and Oracle probably took MONTHS to negotiate, and they always get held up at the last second because SOME top lawyer decides to change one or two terms days before it should be finished. Given a planned announcement, but no Oracle agreement finished, they announced that part they COULD comment on...that they were dropping their own support. Cut a couple of weeks, and now they can complete that thought.
... Jobs was quoted as saying "Maybe there's a better way of doing it".
At the time I was as sceptical as you were, but it now looks as though this was planned and to suggest it's all happened in a 2 weeks knee jerk frenzy seems naive at best and foil-hatted at worst.
Bottom line seems to be that OS X now has Java supported in what appears, logically, to be the most appropriate way.
I'm just sorry the facts don't support your prejudice, I really am, :-/
"...not in any way mean that they had originally planned to do anything other than screw their customers from the start." Keep telling yourself that. The fact that they were going to continue to support JDK 6 through 10.7 (at least the next 2 years) is more than enough notice. That you, a supposed 'expert' missed the publicised deprecation, starting with OS X 10.4, over 5 years ago. This has nothing to do with 'philosophical belief systems' at all and no amount of passive-aggressiveness of logical fallacies are going to change it.
"While it might be possible that it proved advantageous to Oracle to provide a JVM, until it was formally committed to assuming it would arrive as a matter of course is daft. It is not obviously to Oracle’s advantage to do so – most especially if they didn’t have Apple’s co-operation in the matter" That simply isn't cogent. You continue to fail to explain why it's Apple responsibility to support Oracles product; what essentially amount to fixing Oracles bugs and security flaws. Apple don't have any kind of moral obligation to do so. Again, irrespective of your personal beliefs, no amount of logical fallacy or cod philosophical moralising will change this fact.
"I reiterate my belief that the entire incident was exceptionally poorly handled by Apple." I reiterate that you were too quick to accuse and that you over reacted and continue to do so. Are you still going to advise your customers to waste money and replace their Macs for no good reason?
The apology I mentioned isn't for your being wrong; the apology I feel you owe me is for being a myopic, rude, supercilious and pompous ass.
I am sure the Java Store is not making Apple very happy.
Perhaps there will be support for the Java Store under MacOSX?
Perhaps Apple ceding all Java OSX VM development to OpenJDK is just a way for apple to compete with Java, instead of subsidising Java competition under MacOSX?
Apple sells hardware, OK it also sells software but its software buisiness is there to give people a reason to buy its hardware. As java runs on just about every OS, i would guess that the only companies really worried about the java store are those that make a lot of money selling OS's
Yep. That is something glossed over by folks cheering the rah-rah-Apple, however. Good move for Apple (helps lock devs and users in by reducing cross platform compatibility.) Bad move for users (makes getting cross-platform apps via the App Store just that little bit harder and thusly reducing choice.)
... if you can download it from the Apple App Store, you can definitely run it. I don't see how that's a bad thing. In fact, I think it's probably the only rational way to run a consumer facing store.
This story clearly states: "Now it turns out Java developers are invited to the Mac Apps Store party, after all." and mentions that Java will remain in OS X for the next few years. Lots of time for someone to create a packager that bundles a JVM with an app.
"I am willing to give individual human beings the benefit of the doubt and believe that they are decent, compassionate and capable of both sympathy and empathy. I do not remotely believe the same thing of corporations. If a corporation (for whatever reason) wishes to come across as anything other than greedy, grasping and completely untrustworthy they have to prove it."
Unfortunately you cannot trust individual human beings either. In this age, people behave like corporation.