Mitt should claim that he was so certain that the wording in his book hasn't changed that he could have bet $1 billion or even $1 trillion. Because he knew he was right. Try to turn the attention away from the amount of the bet into a discussion of how certain you are of the consistency of your views - because you're not a flip-flopper and you know your positions.

Anyway, that is what I would do to spin this story. Now, I don't know if the text in question had changed between book editions. I haven't seen a story address that actual point. If he did change it, then my advice doesn't hold up very well .

stirrell/Library/Application Support/BBEdit

There is a Terminal command that will unhide the Library folder:

chflags nohidden /users/<username>/library

Oh, when the band engages the crowd with banter between songs, it is not an invitation to begin a conversation, drunk guy. Don't shout back your witticisms.

Or maybe my curmudgeonly attitude is a sign that I am getting too old for all that rock music.

3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

At first, given the very public wrangling Apple and Adobe have had over Flash on the iPhone and iPad, it would appear that this language may have been added to prevent iPhone applications built using Adobe Flash from being allowed in the App Store. Creating an iPhone application using Flash is one of the much ballyhooed new features of Adobe’s new CS5 productivity suite software. Now, it is very much in doubt that this feature will be of any value since Apple will not allow these applications to be sold in their store.

The rationale for this move by Apple is that they want to prevent sub-standard apps from being available on the iPhone degrading the user experience. And, certainly, people who have a lot of experience using Java applications, for example, on the Macintosh can understand this concern. People in the development world claim that Apple is trying to prevent making multiple platform programs harder to make and, thus, locking developers into the iPhone ecosystem and stopping these programs from making it to Google’s Android platform.

Personally, I think that Apple both wants to hurt Adobe, whom they have shown that they have a real problem with and, also, to maintain tighter control over both the user experience and raise the hurdle for porting to Android. I do believe that Apple cares about maintaining a great user experience. And the iPhone is, in my opinion, very nice.

However, here are the reasons why I think what Apple is doing is wrong.

1. It has been pretty well-known that Adobe has been working on a way for Flash developers to create iPhone applications with their newest software. One imagines that they spent tons of time and energy creating this feature for CS5. Not only did Apple not, to my knowledge, warn Adobe that this method of application-creation would not be allowed, but they decided to drop this bombshell less than a week before Adobe announced CS5.
    
   I have seen many Apple fans argue that it is not Apple’s responsibility to create a marketplace for Flash developers to sell their wares and that they don’t owe Adobe anything. I have even heard whining and complaining about Adobe’s software being poorly written for the Macintosh. I agree that it is not Apple’s responsibility to provide a livelihood for Flash developers. I am not sure that I buy that Adobe products are poorly written on the Mac (or more poorly written than on Windows). However, that doesn’t justify Apple’s treatment of Adobe in this situation.
    
   Adobe is a long-time developer for Apple’s Macintosh computers. In my mind, this makes them a partner with Apple. I think that the treatment of Adobe by Apple shows a lack of respect and decency and arrogance. Would you want to partner with a company that treats its partners this way?
    

2. This change in policy is just another example of how the App Store approval process seems to not have any clear set of consistently enforced rules but, instead, seem to be changed at the whim of Apple. For example, there was recently a purge of “sexually explicit” applications on the App Store. Somehow, though, this puritanical bent did not ensnare applications by big companies like Playboy or Sports Illustrated. Just the smaller developers.
    
   This change in the license potentially doesn’t just affect applications created with Adobe Flash but could also effect applications made with Unity, MonoTouch and Appcelerator. There are applications in the App Store that have been approved and have been sold to users but, if the new changes in the license are enforced, will no longer be allowed. Apple has shown that they are willing to remove previously-approved applications from their store. Again, I feel that this shows a callousness by Apple toward their developers.
    
   Developers need not only be worried about the current App Store rules but, apparently, they also need to worry about potential future changes. And, again, not clearly communicating application guidelines and moving the goalposts on developers shows and arrogance and lack of respect for developers. Furthermore, it should be up to the developers to determine the best tools to use to create their applications. Apple should need only concern themselves with the finished product. If a third party framework is not capable of creating a compelling, high-quality application than I trust users not to buy the product and, so, the developer will not make money and the enterprise will not be worth their time. Why not trust the users? It is in the developers’ own interest to make great applications to ensure a good revenue and continued business.
    
   If Apple is truly concerned only with the quality of applications then they should be able to review based on that. I think we can all agree that there are terrible apps that have made it through the approval process. Reject the terrible apps if that is truly your goal, Apple. But having this much uncertainty in the approval process makes the iPhone App Store a risky proposition for developers.

I really see these recent moves by Apple as them becoming overconfident and arrogant. I believe that this attitude is partly what led to Apple’s dire situation in the 90s. This arrogance is parroted by Mac fans who have flooded tech boards with comments amounting to “love it or leave it” and showing a fairly strong devotion to Apple and the belief in their infallibility. It is hard to believe that Apple fans would endorse this kind of iron fisted rule by Microsoft… but Apple can do no wrong in the eyes of these fans. Any developer who questions Apple’s policies are treated as the enemy.

I think that this arrogance and shabby treatment of others could lead to Apple’s downfall. Android seems very appealing and I think the Windows 7 Phone looks intriguing. They should offer compelling alternatives for developers and I really do think it is the developers and the software that makes or breaks a system.

Now, I am not a good critic for the Blue Harvest DVD. I have to admit that I am just not a Family Guy fan. I can’t get into it. I guess it is just not my kind of humor. If you know me, that very well could be an endorsement for the Family Guy. There were a couple parts that I found to be funny. The Grey Poupon joke was very amusing and the discussion of the minor design flaw of the Death Star was great. But, all in all, I found myself just scratching my head as to why so many people enjoy The Family Guy. Again, it just isn’t for me for some reason. I thought many of the Blue Harvest jokes were very obvious and that other jokes could have easily been removed from a Star Wars parody. They seemed pretty independent from Star Wars.

That said, I am really impressed with the price point. Seeing all of the discussion leading up to the announcement, I figured it would be in the $800 - $1,000 range. $499 for the low-end model seems like a great value… especially if you’re looking at, say, a Kindle DX. And, obviously, the iPad will have a lot of additional uses beyond being used as an eReader and, so, to me would seem like a better choice if you’re looking into that price range.

I understand why they went with the iPhone OS but I am still disappointed for a couple of reasons. First, most of the apps for the iPhone (which I do own) are not very robust. They are generally quite gimmicky. They are definitely not as full-featured as Macintosh applications. That said, the iPhone interface is obviously geared to the iPad’s multi-touch interface. I mean, it is essentially a big iphone, after all, and it isn’t clear how easy the full-fledged Mac OS X could be moved to a multitouch interface. But, I still would have liked to see it based on Mac OS X. I fear that Apple is losing focus of their full-fledged computers and are risking becoming much more of a gadget maker.

Another reason the iPod OS approach is disappointing to me is that you’ll have Apple as a gatekeeper to all applications (unless it is jailbroken or something similar). I understand why Apple would want to do this… think of all the revenue this generates as they get a cut of every paid application sold. Indeed, this may well be one reason that the hardware price is so low. Much like razors, they can make money on the blades (or the apps). But, having a gatekeeper in place is very limiting for developers. Will Apple refuse to release applications like Firefox that would compete with their built-in apps? If the iPhone’s history is any indication then, yes, they will limit applications and stifle competing products.

And, speaking of competing products, iPad will not support Flash. Perhaps there will be a workaround in the future but the iPhone still does not have Flash support. I have to wonder if Flash and Silverlight would be blocked to lock users out of all of the alternatives to the iTunes Store. The iPad would be much more attractive if I could watch Netflix movies or Hulu content right from it. Of course, having these options available would really limit the appeal of paying for content from the iTunes Store.

In the end, I think that I am not the target audience for one of these devices. That said, I do think that Apple will sell a tons of iPads. They are a really cool and neat toy… I would just not be willing to pay that much for something which, in my mind, offers so few advantages to having a smartphone and a laptop.