$0 in it for Oracle seems to be a compelling reason not to support it.
But it seems they didn't bother with actually talking to Oracle about this so Apple would be able to communicate to its customers that Oracle was taking over.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs Comments on Apple's Java Discontinuation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
$0 in it for Oracle seems to be a compelling reason not to support it.
But it seems they didn't bother with actually talking to Oracle about this so Apple would be able to communicate to its customers that Oracle was taking over.
By what standard are you measuring? The dominant language on the desktop today is almost definitely C, given that Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, and Windows are all primarily written in C. Even in userspace applications, Java is relatively minor. Cocoa dominates OS X, I believe Windows is predominantly C, C++, VB, and C#, and Linux is mostly C or C++.
On the server side, Java is more popular, but competing in a dense landscape that includes PHP, Python, and Ruby. IMO, Java is slowly but steadily losing ground in this space.
Java's main stronghold is in enterprise software -- the software that large corporations build in-house for themselves. If you're in this position -- and you are tasked with supporting macs -- then I feel your pain.
But I don't think Java is disappearing, it just won't be updated. So you'll be able to continue using it for some time with no problems. Plus, AFAICT, openjdk runs on OS X now... so perhaps not much need for an Oracle proprietary JDK.
This statement is untrue on Apple's Java platform:
http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#technotes/tn2007/tn2196.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS10004439
Yes, I am 100% concerned that any new JVM will never get back to where we are today with Apple's Java as far as support for native-looking widgets and desktop integration. Even the release last week had new OS X specific features.
By moved aside, you mean deprecated, which is common when old technology no longer fits. In fact, this happens at the lowest common denominator... the function level, fairly often.
Carbon had its day and it was supported as a transitional technology. I never was confused by this.
Apple did invest in Java. They now want to shift the onus back to the owner of Java. Oracle will support Java or Apple may reconsider its position. I don't see Java going away... do you really? Steve's reason was predictable and reasonable -- only the timing is in question here because we do not have an official statement from Oracle/Sun on how Mac OS X will be supported.
Let's not make mountains out of molehills here.
Apple is phasing out developers. They don't make their real money with us so it stands to reason they'd go after the low hanging fruit more so than the developers that stuck with them through the lean years. Apple makes more from selling iPod nanos and iPhones than they make from selling Mac pros & Mac books. Why else do you think they dropped the word computer from their name? Sad 
's...
's...And this is different from other platforms . . . why again?
And you know this because. . . . ?
Which is why I never supported Apple's stance on Flash, as much as I hate Flash. I knew Java would be in Jobs' blinders next.
Also why folks are blind if they don't see a lockdown of apps on OS X coming after 10.7 and it's App Store. Steve wants a closed ecosystem folks - especially when he can take/steal a 30% cut of it.
The time to speak up is now - before it's too late.
Oracle is working on an answer
Credit to: Justin Kestelyn (twitter: @oracletechnet)
"To peeps asking me if Oracle will supply a JVM for Mac OS X - when I have the answer, I'll share it"
Go here to see all of their twitter feeds just in case someone else posts an answer:
http://twitter.com/#!/oracle
Credit to: Justin Kestelyn (twitter: @oracletechnet)
"To peeps asking me if Oracle will supply a JVM for Mac OS X - when I have the answer, I'll share it"
Go here to see all of their twitter feeds just in case someone else posts an answer:
http://twitter.com/#!/oracle
Ah <bleep>. You will still be able to install any app you want outside of the App store. Come on.
Total misrepresentation of the facts! Oracle will step in I am certain and Steve most likely already knows this. This is a move to keep OS X Java up to date not drop it. On the other hand Adobe does not do this. Look at Safari 64 bit ... NO ADOBE READER PLUG-IN! You have to switch Safari to 32 bit for it to still work. Don't even get me started on the Adobe OS X Flash implementation!
Oracle makes money on other platforms because other platforms have a presence in the server market. Read the thread.
Because they obviously didn't. Are you suggesting they did talk to Oracle and they know that Oracle will take over the maintenance of Java but they're keeping it a secret? WTF?
I don't understand the sarcasm. What java innovation has happened in the last 3-4 years that you're missing? I can't think of any application, tool, or service that doesn't run on your typical java 5 installation.
This is inevitable... languages are supposed to stabilize. People are still so upgrade crazy that they think everything should have a new release monthly.
Anyway, like I said, it's better that java be in the hands of the actual developer rather than a 3rd party like Apple.
If they want the users, they'll support it. If they don't.... well.. back to my first point. What wouldn't run on the current Apple jvm anyway?
And yet, you're still here...
If you had an app that requires a newer version of Java, it wouldn't run. But today many people get that from Software Update without realizing it.
You are also exposing yourself to 3 or 4 years worth of security vulnerabilities, that are fixed in updates to Java. If you aren't going to use it, you probably out to just remove it vs. ignoring security updates.
Godwin's Law, post 100, right on schedule.
Huh, What?
Why on earth does anyone think Oracle would support the Mac OS X?
1. Hardware makers are responsible for porting the Sun JVM from existing platforms to their own. IBM, HP, and previously Apple all did as well as many others. Sun only developed for Windows, Solaris, and (begrudgingly) Linux.
2. Oracle has never taken the mac seriously. They ported Oracle DB 10g and never supported it or issued updates. (The current version is 11g R2.)
3. Oracle is a profit motivated company. There is no profit for them in creating a JVM for Mac OS X. It will not help them sell more enterprise hardware or software or services, and that's how they make their money. They could care less about the desktop consumer apps you use on your home computer.
4. If you think Steve and Larry are actually friends (or that that would make a difference at all) you're kidding yourselves.
Why on earth does anyone think Oracle would support the Mac OS X?
1. Hardware makers are responsible for porting the Sun JVM from existing platforms to their own. IBM, HP, and previously Apple all did as well as many others. Sun only developed for Windows, Solaris, and (begrudgingly) Linux.
2. Oracle has never taken the mac seriously. They ported Oracle DB 10g and never supported it or issued updates. (The current version is 11g R2.)
3. Oracle is a profit motivated company. There is no profit for them in creating a JVM for Mac OS X. It will not help them sell more enterprise hardware or software or services, and that's how they make their money. They could care less about the desktop consumer apps you use on your home computer.
4. If you think Steve and Larry are actually friends (or that that would make a difference at all) you're kidding yourselves.
And yet, you're still here...
Yes, I am. At work I'm running Linux, though. Java 6 will suffice for a couple of years and my next laptop probably wont be a mac if it comes without the JVM.
Do you think your line becomes more profound the more you repeat it? Why do you care?
Aside from the fact that Apple has already conveyed their distaste for non-natively developed applications.
I share that sentiment..
For the sake of argument, let's Oracle says no. What stops Apple from retracting its position? This is not about how much Steve hates Java, it's about who the owner is and keeping the platform up-to-date in the best possible way.
The reality here is much more benign than some are arguing.
Nothing stops Apple from retracting it. But that back and forth creates uncertainty for customers.
If Oracle really was going to support it wouldn't you think Apple would have talked to them first? And if they had, that Oracle would have a statement regarding support for the platform?
Dude, you keep saying that you're taking your ball and going home. Pouting. So go home already. Why are you still here? To try to create some drama?
Who cares about damn java?????? Better say something about iWeb, Steve!!!!!!!
Don't know if you're kidding or not
But there are a lot of us who are freaking out about the "dropping" of iWeb.
I know how to write HTML/CSS, dabble in DOM, and know Wordpress and Drupal darn well but iWeb is something I use often, for "down and dirty" websites that look decent, and WORK on most computers. Sure, the source isn't pretty, but it's very, very weird that iWeb would go the way of the Dodo.
And a very bad decision imho.
PHP, Python and Ruby, unless they're running on a JVM won's scale, so their fine for small shop development.
Why don't you take a look at J2EE 5 to understand what were talking about.
I believe I have as much right to be here as you do. I find the discussion interesting. Find someone else to be rude to.
Right -- and we don't know if they did or did not. The antagonists will claim they did not... at most, I think there is a supportable argument for the lack of timing, but we are talking about developers here, not end-users. What is Apple going to do: hold town forums, put it to a vote, ...
This is simple: Apple does not own Java. It is not the best company to release it. Apple thinks it should be someone else. There is time to work out the details since Apple just released the last update. Apple can always regroup if it doesn't work out the way it wants.
In likelihood there were already discussions and what is missing is the PR element. Sure that's a guess on my part...