Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gosling Reacts To Apple's Java Deprecation

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the could-this-be-turned-into-a-movie dept.

Java 436

Kurofuneparry writes "Apple has announced that Java is deprecated as of the most recent update to OS X. This shot across the bow is getting some responses. To Jobs' claim that 'Sun (now Oracle) supplies Java for all other platforms,' James Gosling is quoted as saying that 'simply isn't true.' Much talk of a coming turf war is to be had. This certainly can't be unrelated to statements from Jobs recently covered on this website and is sure to make waves. Apple has enjoyed significant success recently accompanied by a widespread sense that they can do no wrong in business or design. However, is deprecating Java a mistake? It doesn't take much insight to connect the dots and see that Apple has starting marking friends and enemies relative to the increasingly heated fight for mobile and other platforms."

cancel ×

436 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cost to support benefit (4, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995990)

Overly-dramatic summary aside, isn't this just because the cost for Apple to support Java on OS X is greater than the benefit it provides?

Re:Cost to support benefit (5, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996196)

Basically, Sun never supported Java on the Mac, Apple did. Apple provided the developers, the tools, apple did all the work, and then paid Sun for the privilege. (it costs money to make sure your JVM was approved).

With oracle now suing every other Java implementation out there that wasn't approved Apple probably thought it just wasn't worth it. Expensive to do, costs money to do it, and unless your sending money up to oracle yearly, now a patent nightmare mess.

Look at it this way a side effect might be that Oracle stops suing non oracle approved JVM's, including Davik. The Bad press might be more than they realize.

Re:Cost to support benefit (5, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996250)

It's too bad; Macs really caught on at my workplace since OS-X was released. Our software targets Windows and Linux, but since we're mainly a java shop developers can run Macs on their desktops if they like, and since OS-X. almost half of them have chosen to do so; they all have 8-core power macs with 8 gigs of RAM etc. If java doesn't keep up on the Mac, OS-X won't be a viable option for us any more.

Re:Cost to support benefit (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996304)

Apple already lagged behind Java releases, especially large ones like going from Java 5 -> 6. If Oracle picks up the slack and develops an OSX JVM Java on the Mac could end up being in a better situation.

I do agree that if Java is left to whither on the Mac it's going to hurt Apple in some way, although it's still hard to quantify how much.

Re:Cost to support benefit (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996310)

Don't you anticipate that Oracle will start shipping java for OS X? I mean, really.

Re:Cost to support benefit (4, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996328)

The reasoning SJ gave for dropping it though was precicely that it wasn't keeping up – if apple maintain it, it's constantly one version behind as they get the new source and patch it into their JVM... If oracle do it, it stays nice and up to date all the time.

Re:Cost to support benefit (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996466)

they all have 8-core power macs with 8 gigs of RAM etc. If java doesn't keep up on the Mac, OS-X won't be a viable option for us any more.

But those are only the minimum system requirements to run java!

Re:Cost to support benefit (3, Informative)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996266)

Except Davik is not a JVM. You can't download java *.class file and run it on Davik.

Re:Cost to support benefit (2, Informative)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996430)

Apparently you can translate them though and they'll "run".

Re:Cost to support benefit (5, Insightful)

tom229 (1640685) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996288)

Hardly. This is a move to crush anyone that wants to use Java to build a cross platform "app" that would work on Blackberrys, windows, linux, iphones, osx, etc. Apple was officially licenced to produce their own JVM. To say they were worried about a lawsuit is horribly naive. Apple is an evil, exclusive company that has forever been secretly trying to go 1984 all over the personal computing industry. Once again their true colors are showing.

Re:Cost to support benefit (3, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996436)

They didn't make their own JVM, it's HotSpot.

Re:Cost to support benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996236)

Breaking news. All programming language and developer tools deprecated on OS X.
Don't want the unwashed hipsters/masses writing their OWN "APPS".

Re:Cost to support benefit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996252)

Steve Jobs can eat the hot, creamy shit that pours out of my lubricated asshole for all I care. Fuck him and fuck Java.

What are the negative consequences? (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33995998)

What are the side effects of having a computer that does not decode Java?
Nothing at all?

Re:What are the negative consequences? (3, Insightful)

dskoll (99328) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996038)

The side-effects are that Java developers won't use Macs. (Since I use neither Java nor Apple products, I don't really care that mcuh, but I think Apple might be shooting itself in the foot.)

Of much more concern is the App store for Mac OS X idea. Apple is turning Mac OS X into a closed iPhone-like system. I guess my anti-Apple rant [skoll.ca] will soon apply to Mac OS X as well as the iP* systems.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (4, Interesting)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996142)

There are still open source equivalents of the JVM such as SoyLatte and the like. Plus, I really don't believe Gosling on this. I imagine we will be seeing an Oracle branded JVM for the mac in the next year or so. The apple audience is just too big to ignore. It won't have first class citizenship like it used to have with the OS, but then again, Apple has been gradually pushing Java to the side. Java updates have always been incredibly slow for the mac and trying to make a Java app look native takes a tremendous amount of work that sort of goes against the spirit of Java and also creates compile headaches.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (4, Insightful)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996150)

Open-source JVM's on OSX are highly incomplete and typically use X11. This is not ideal behavior, at all.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (3, Insightful)

iPaqMan (230487) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996176)

Then Oracle should get right on that if they want to truly be a common platform for all OS.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996410)

If Oracle decides to maintain the JVM and the Java class libraries on OS X, they'll be using X11 for the AWT and Swing libraries. You're horribly out of touch with reality if you think Oracle is going to fuck around with JVM internals and Cocoa just to placate a few Mac developers.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (2, Interesting)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996416)

If you tried to develop native apps using the current default Apple setup, you'd realize it's hardly ideal as well. And by way, the open source JVMs are not as incomplete as you imagine, considering they are being used by the majority of Disney's internet engineering team to develop the infrastructure. I'm speaking of SoyLatte in particuliar)

Re:What are the negative consequences? (5, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996220)

I think Gosling is correct.

Why would Oracle care to port JVM/JDK to Mac on their own, especially now, when so many developers that used to work on Java are gone from Sun/Oracle after the buyout deal?

Actually Oracle doesn't care about Mac platform, it cares about its money making business - databases, ERP software etc. and what percentage of that runs on any Mac server exactly?

The only single reason for Oracle to care is to try and preserve more Java developers, which they probably do care about, because so many of their own products use Java. But do they really care about developers on Macs? I don't see it.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (4, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996354)

Yes they do because many of their enterprise Java GUI products run on Mac. They've also made a major commitment to JavaFX 2.0, and ignoring 20% of the desktop market would make no sense to them.

The question is whether Apple will give them their OS X Swing implementation, or whether Oracle will have to write it themselves.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996144)

To play advocate of the devil here, since I care less about either Apple nor Java, isn't the side effect that Apple's competition in the phones world got a boot from the platform that is owned by the owners of iPhone?
I do not know what the implications are on the longer term but on the short term it causes their competition to spend time setting up new development environments, and diminished looking over the shoulders into the Apple technical world as developers are not going to keep up with that if they can't work from that platform anyway.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996240)

IntelliJ, Netbeans and Eclipse products may cease to work on Macs so it will be more than just Java developers. Unless of course everyone decides to use Xcode or Vim/Textmate.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996314)

Just wanted to say that I enjoyed your "Why I Don't Like Apple" post. It didn't over-dramatize things, and is a good argument against the long-term effect of making things hard to peek inside.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996372)

The side-effects of course are that Apple users will no longer enjoy the benefits of attractive looking, quick starting, super fast applications that run (at least) 500% faster than their C++ or even hand-crafted assembler counterparts. It's all due to the latest clever 'Just-in-time' JVMs that are to be released any centu^H^H^H^H^H day now... they'll be able to dynamically compile and optimise the program in the background, without any performance impact what-so-ever.
Apple code quality will also likely suffer, as programmers are forced to move from modern 'type-safe' languages like Java (except for that bit where you have to cast from Object to your desired type every few lines) that strongly enforce modern techniques like exceptions (except that bit where people just catch them and do nothing) to dead languages such as C++ that have all manner of dangerous features like unsigned types.
Thus... Macs as a platform? Unlikely to last another couple of years

Re:What are the negative consequences? (5, Insightful)

gig (78408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996444)

The side-effects are that Java developers won't use Macs. (Since I use neither Java nor Apple products, I don't really care that mcuh, but I think Apple might be shooting itself in the foot.)

Of much more concern is the App store for Mac OS X idea. Apple is turning Mac OS X into a closed iPhone-like system. I guess my anti-Apple rant [skoll.ca] will soon apply to Mac OS X as well as the iP* systems.

Keep ranting. Nobody gives a shit.

Users want to be able to install apps with one click and have them just work, whether they are native apps or Web apps. Apple has done a ton of work to enable that on both their own Cocoa platform and the common HTML5 platform, which they have done at least as much as anybody else to realize. Apps that depend on Flash or Java don't fit this model. Not only are there various versions of the runtimes which may or may not run the app you're trying to use, and not only are there various security issues that come up regularly, the user is expected to play I-T guy and sort that all out.

If you are a Java developer, you can run Java on your own server and provide an HTML5 interface on the client, or a Cocoa interface on Apple platforms. That is how Apple themselves use Java. Cocoa and HTML5 both have auto installs and auto updates built-in, and are therefore consistent with consumer use. Whatever is on the server can be as nerdy as you like, but what is on the client has to be consumer grade. Flash and Java are not consumer grade.

Understand that Apple makes consumer products. Would you expect a TV or DVD Player to have Flash and Java and expect the user to update them regularly? That is insanity. So you're not going to have those runtimes on iPads and MacBooks either. These devices don't have I-T support people. The users don't know what Flash or Java is.

So you missed the point entirely. Apple's App Stores are not about being closed, they are about working for consumers 100% of the time with absolutely zero I-T work. Apple makes very, very little money from App Store. The incentive is not to close it, but rather to make it work perfectly. Same with Apple's Web app platform, which is 100% open it's pure W3C HTML5 and ISO MPEG-4 media so that it works 100% of the time for consumers with zero I-T work. You don't need various browsers you switch to for some sites, you don't need to update your Flash or Java, you don't need to download codecs, the one in your GPU is the only one you need. Flash and Java don't make the cut in consumer computing. Blaming Apple for that is just denialism, a way to put your nerd head in the sand and wish the clock would turn back.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (4, Informative)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996046)

No Eclipse, which is used in a vast number of development tools (including non-Java ones), especially for embedded systems. No NeoOffice, which (at least last time I used OSX, which was admittedly a LONG time ago) is the only way to make OpenOffice on the Mac usable. And plenty of business applications are in Java, either as applets or standalone applications - they'll break too.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (2, Interesting)

WebMink (258041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996204)

There are perfectly fine versions of both LibreOffice [documentfoundation.org] and indeed OpenOffice.org for the Mac, and many people haven't used NeoOffice in an age (and I don't think it depends on Java anymore anyway). Whatever the consequences of Jobs ditching Java might be (and I assert they are significant [computerworlduk.com] ) they don't include a threat to open source office productivity apps.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (1)

Enrique1218 (603187) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996228)

Openoffice 3. Is full compatible and native with the Mac with intel processors.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (1)

magnus.ahlberg (1211924) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996278)

And is it a coincidence that Eclipse is the tool used to develop Android applications? This will make it more difficult to cross-develop applications using only a mac. I'm sure there will be other Java implementations for Mac OS X so I'm not that worried, but it still makes you wonder.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (1)

prionic6 (858109) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996428)

The Eclipse ecosystem is probably the easiest of the bunch to get running with good results on an open source jvm because it does not use AWT/Swing and would not have to use the X-Windows subsystem that the open source jvms use at the moment. SWT Libraries are native Cocoa, more or less, connected via jni.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (3, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996064)

I kinda summed up [knowyourmeme.com] the consequences, OK i was pessimistic but I also had forgotten apple used to have offerings in the server market. A server that can't do tomcat natively? hmmmm.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996136)

Can't run OO.o (or LibreOffice) for a start.

Re:What are the negative consequences? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996258)

OpenOffice runs fine without Java. OpenOffice Base requires Java, but the majority of the rest of the suite doesn't.

As stated on the OpenOffice wiki [openoffice.org] :

If you do not require database tables or accessibility integration or some wizards, then you do not need to download and install Java.

Exactly (4, Insightful)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996352)

You an run the core product, but only a few of the modules that really provide the power to the OO platform, like highly integrated database-document interaction. But the vast majority of Apple users generally don't have those kinds of technical skills anyway.

Open office is a basically a business application designed to serve as an open alternative to the basic Microsoft suite of business products. Apple sees its future in the trendy gadget, cool phones and vido-games markets, not in general technical/business computing. As a percentage of their sales, developers are just a tiny fraction of their user-base, so why go through the extra expense of catering to them, when you can develop a closed-shop end-user general consumer market instead?

No Big Deal Really (4, Interesting)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996184)

This is not a big deal really.

Software developers aren't really all that important to Apple market share anymore as they have been moving toward becoming more of a source for trendy tech gadgets rather than a major force in computer driven software for some time now. They intend to phase out of computers completely as there is more money to be made with iPhones, toy tablets and other trendy gizmos. They see no future in the business world of databases, web-development and science-based applications, but rather in the end-user market phone, games and entertainment space. Apple intends not to compete with Microsoft or Linux. With OS X, their primary targets are increasingly Sony, Nitendo, Nokia, Samsung and the like.

Lets face it modern American youth are really no longer receiving the kind of educations that they would need to remain current in the computer-tech world. Jobs is just adapting to market realities and the fact he has a captive market of folks who recognize that they can't really be "cool" unless they buy Apple products.

No Middleware? (1)

bgweber (1676858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996376)

I was going to use a server farm of Macs to run the middleware for my enterprise business application. Guess I'll need another solution ...

Objective-C is deprecated (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996004)

But people won't get tired of pointing out how superior it is compared to C++.

Re:Objective-C is deprecated (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996408)

I don't think you are using the word "deprecated" correctly. I think you mean "obsolete" or "old", but not "deprecated".

Objective-C is not deprecated because neither Apple nor its original developers have deprecated it. Deprecation is the act of marking a software as having been superseded, and recommended that its use be avoided. It requires an agency to have denoted it so. Whereas "obsolete" is simply an adjective that does not require an agency.

Apple and the future (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996010)

This is starting to feel like Nazi Germany in 1933...

Re:Apple and the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996160)

Overdramatic much?

Re:Apple and the future (1, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996210)

They came first for Flash,
and I didn't post because I wasn't into broadcasting a webcam.

Then they came for the Java,
and I didn't blog because I wasn't a programmer.

Then they came for OS X,
and I didn't tweet because I wasn't a Mac Pro owner.

Then they came for the keyboard.
and by that time no one was left to bleet.

Re:Bleet! (3, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996362)

That's it!

Make a service called Bleeter! "The Voice of the Sheep!" You can get modded if other Sheep like your Bleet!

Maybe we can get Yasmine Bleeth to advertise for it.

Antitrust lawsuit? (0)

Mr Pleco (1160587) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996030)

If you'll excuse me I'm going to go imagine the sh*t-storm that would happen if windows pulled a stunt like this....

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996078)

They already did. If I'm not mistaken, Windows 7 does not include Java.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (0)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996112)

Hmm, when has Windows included Java? As far as I know, XP and Vista didn't.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996188)

What the fuck are you talking about dumb ass? Windows has never included Java by default.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996232)

The issue here isn't Java itself but the fact that this is a prelude to treating Java applications like some sort of pariah by being excluded from the "Mac Store" and being excluded from Apple's new answer to apt-get.

This is about treating Java-in-general as a second class citizen on MacOS.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (2, Insightful)

benbean (8595) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996286)

This is about treating Java-in-general as a second class citizen on MacOS.

It is and has for a long time been a second-class citizen on Mac OS X. I can think of no major (or even many minor) applications for the OS X platform that are written in Java. It hasn't proven itself necessary. It's costly and difficult for Apple to maintain for no tangible benefit when they can simply provide the hooks for the actual owner of Java to implement their own package if they so desire.

Where's the beef?

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (1)

iPaqMan (230487) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996316)

So which OS treats Java as a first class citizen?

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (2, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996082)

Microsoft has never supported a JVM for Windows in the first place; at most, Apple is now in the same position, not worse. Besides not having a control of the market like MS does.

I'm not an Apple apologist, but it's not comparable at all.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (4, Informative)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996190)

Huh? What history are you reading from? Microsoft very much did have their own JVM implementation for many years, then Sun started anti-trust litigation against Microsoft regarding it. Sometime in 2001, Microsoft settled and agreed to stop distributing it.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (0, Troll)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996242)

I meant a version of the Sun JVM, not MSJVM. That would be the reverse: including it resulted on a lawsuit, not removing it.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (1)

WebMink (258041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996292)

Still wrong. The JVM Microsoft created for Windows (until they embarked on their fateful "embrace & extend") was a port of the Sun JVM.

Really (3, Insightful)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996290)

I develop Java on Windows quite well thank you. Yes there was a dust up, when MIcrosoft tied to grab a hold of the language through proprietary VM, but they lost that suit and Windows remains a great platform for Java development and likely to stay that way, otherwise many customers like me will simply migrate to Ubuntu or another system capable of running Java, which would further erode Windows market share, particularly in the business applications market.

Thats why Apple wants to kill Java. They don't believe in end-users having that kind of choice. For them software and computer gadgets are all about closed and captive, rather than open markets. Just check out the dearth of really useful, but incredibly expensive stuff in the iPhone apps market that only do things that are Apple-approved. For many end users thats fine as they just want a cool app or gadget that works. They have no real technical understanding beyond pressing "buttons". They do other things with their lives.

Apple has become the trendy tech for the non-technical. Apple sees their market there rather than in general purpose computer manufacturing. Its a good move for Jobs. In his lifetime, things are likely to pretty much stay that way. For people who expand the boundaries of what you can do with computing technology Apple is becoming a closed, shrinking market, except for those developing games and trendy gizmo, entertainment software. For them in the long run Apple is increasingly becoming a dead market for significant technical innovation. For folks who are primarily interested in web-centric technical computing, Apple is really longer "cool" and really has no future, which is not the same thing as saying they won't have a sizable market or profits for some time to come. Look at Sony and Nintendo, they are still making money, but no one would claim they serve as development platforms for innovate software other than games and video entertainment.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996100)

Windows doesn't ship with a JVM.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996118)

Does Microsoft include Java in there OS install? If so, do they make a custom package for it or does Sun?

Why is not including something in an OS have anything to do with anti-trust?

Re:Antitrust lawsuit? (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996168)

I am going to imagine the praise that would have gone to Steve if he opened up the source of his java implementation instead. Then leave it to the community and if it lags simply tell people: java is dying, use (technology X) instead.

SAME EFFORT, better image overall. This saddens me as I attacked apple but also appreciated their tech for a few happy years.

No antitrust lawsuit IMO. Instead be honest and put a sticker on apple products saying "warning, the producer has the means and the will to control what you put on this device".

MS pulled support for Java years ago (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996390)

...some time after they got sued by Sun for trying to "embrace and extend" it by adding incompatible extensions.

But then:

  1. Microsoft has a near-monopoly on desktop computing - Apple doesn't
  2. Microsoft has a near-monopoly on desktop computing - Apple doesn't
  3. Microsoft has a near-monopoly on desktop computing - Apple doesn't

I know that's technically only one reason but it is so important that I thought that I'd mention it three times. If Oracle or IBM doesn't pick up Java support for Mac then you get to vote with your feet and switch to Windows or Linux. It'll even run on your Mac hardware. Not so easy if you're pissed off with MS and work in a sector dominated by Windows, MS Office or Internet Exporer.

Reading tea leaves (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996034)

Or maybe Jobs cut a deal with Oracle for them to port to OS X. Though IMO, with Oracle in charge, Java's days may be numbered anyway.

Re:Reading tea leaves (1)

HogGeek (456673) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996432)

"Java's days may be numbered anyway"

You state that like it's a bad thing...

Linux-like repository instead of Mac appstore? (1)

gorgonite (79857) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996036)

This would be a non-issue if the new Mac Appstore could distribute low-level software, libraries, third party software and frameworks just like linux distributions. In particular, if Apple isn't interested in Java anymore, but someone else would maintain it, everybody would be fine.

No definite transition plan (5, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996040)

The mistake isn't necessarily deprecating Java, if that is the way forward then that is the way forward. The big mistake is deprecating it without ANY concrete plans on a way forward. Corporate types hate uncertainty and Apple fails to realize this it seems. I mean we don't even know if Oracle will provide a JVM for mac, and if they do what will become of the Apple-specific technologies(such as launching with the Java application stub, using Cocoa instead of X, the Apple specific Java extensions etc.)

Where I work we use a lot of Apple Java and now we have absolutely 0 idea on whether we should invest any more in Apple at all. Buying new hardware and transitioning to a new platform is expensive, but at least the other major platforms(Windows and Linux) do at least provide some certainty as to the future of those products and the platforms they will support.

Basically Steve is treating major software platform updates the same we he treats iMac hardware updates, and that just doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

Re:No definite transition plan (3, Insightful)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996068)

This will teach you to listen to the mac junkies for business design.

Re:No definite transition plan (2, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996158)

without ANY concrete plans on a way forward.

Apple does have a fairly long history of keeping their plans secret as long as possible, so they may actually have one. They still don't seem to be targeting the "enterprise", so may be continuing that way here.

Re:No definite transition plan (2, Interesting)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996244)

The writing has been on the wall for awhile now since they deprecated the cocoa-java bridge so I'm the sun/oracle folk saw this coming for awhile. Plus updates have been few and far between. I'm guessing we'll see an Oracle JVM in the next year or so. Otherwise, SoyLatte still works really well. But here's the problem with desktop Java on the mac -- it's pretty easy to write a crappy UI but it takes a lot of work to write a seamless native one. The code gets riddled with if statements, checking the OS type. Also, using apple classes will cause compile errors on other platforms. In fact, you'll spend so much time bending backwards (possibly using third party libraries like MacWidgets since the Swing ones suck) that you'll wonder why you didn't code the fucker in objective c in the first place. And my god ... Interface Builder is lightyears ahead of any Java interface building tool (aka Matisse and some Eclipse plugins). So in summation, this sucks for the two desktop developers coding for the mac, but most other developers will be fine. Where I work we use a lot of Apple Java and now we have absolutely 0 idea on whether we should invest any more in Apple at all. Buying new hardware and transitioning to a new platform is expensive, but at least the other major platforms(Windows and Linux) do at least provide some certainty as to the future of those products and the platforms they will support. Unless your company is developing Java desktop apps for the Mac, you should be fine. When I worked at ESPN, most of us developed on Macs, using SoyLatte then deployed to Window boxes using the official JVM. I'm guessing Oracle will be releasing some sort of announcement in the near future.

Re:No definite transition plan (1)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996280)

Sorry ... that posted as HTML Formatted as opposed to plain old text ... uggh, they really need to do some housecleaning around here.

Re:No definite transition plan (1)

prionic6 (858109) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996450)

The writing has been on the wall for awhile now since they deprecated the cocoa-java bridge so I'm the sun/oracle folk saw this coming for awhile.

On the other hand, cocoa-java was an abomination. An elegant one maybe.

Re:No definite transition plan (2)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996302)

Absolutely. It is often not cost effective to write programs just for Mac, so many of the programs that Mac user depend on are written in Java. By not telling us if we will continue to run Java, we are left with uncertainty if the Mac will run mission critical code.

Many will say that Oracle can supply the JVM. That is not acceptable. This will lead to cases where the JVM is broken by an Apple update to the OS. This is not like Flash where if it breaks, who cars. There is nothing critical about flash. This is about Mac users getting work done.

I hope the situation is not as dire as some think. I think is is part of the launchpad/App store thing, which IMHO is just a gimmick to get iOS users to buy a mac. The one big problem with iOS is that it does not run Java, and it does the iPad cannot replace a laptop. If the Mac does not run Java, then it will have a much harder time competing with a PC, which means the high end Laptops will become much less atrractive.

Re:No definite transition plan (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996366)

You have an option to install Linux on our Mac hardware to leverage your current investment. But I don't think we will see JDK for OS X from Oracle. Only the X11 based OpenJDK one. And that's unacceptable. So don't buy more Macs if you care about non-Objective C development.

Oh honestly (2, Insightful)

Zergwyn (514693) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996042)

It seems to have become trendy again to hate Apple no matter what, but this is getting ridiculous. Why is it that Apple is expected to be the only platform vendor that has to maintain their own version of the JVM for free? Jobs is quite correct in saying that Java under OS X has long lagged behind the latest official Sun release. I wish it was more common for Apple to leave more components to third parties now that they've got more market share. Another example would be graphics drivers, which lag tremendously in both performance and features. I don't understand why on Earth any Java dev would want to be stuck indefinitely with Apple's outdated implementation that by definition would never be a major priority rather then get a version from the main organization behind it. For that matter I blame Sun's longstanding ambivalence toasted FOSS. If we had a fully open GPL edition of the JVM that was best of class like we should have gotten years ago, this never would have been an issue in the first place. It's yet another tech Sun's BS has screwed us on, with their insistance to out ZFS under the CDDL rather then Apache/BSD/LGPL being another major example. Anyone still have that old sun strategy wheel, from before 'acquisition' became their final exit?

Re:Oh honestly (1)

Chris Newton (1711450) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996104)

From personal experience, the version of Java on Macs seems to have lagged significantly behind the version widely available on other platforms from Sun/Oracle. It's not clear to me yet exactly what this announcement/reaction refers to, but if it means clients who use Macs wind up downloading/installing up-to-date Java runtimes like everyone on other platforms, and have the latest version as a result, that sounds like a good thing.

Re:Oh honestly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996202)

That is exactly what it means. The apple version of Java is being deprecated, they are not preventing you from installing other runtimes. In fact, you *can* install other versions of Java on OSX now, but because the apple JVM is integrated into the OS, un-installing it is a pain for the average user. This is a (rare-ish) example of apple leaving it to the appropriate third parties.

Re:Oh honestly (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996400)

Except there isn't a JDK to download. SoyLatte is a poor incomplete implementation that relies on X11 for GUI.

Re:Oh honestly (5, Informative)

jgulla (6152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996148)

First off, IBM and HP maintain their own JVMs (as did Microsoft until the Sun/MS lawsuit). Secondly, Apple insisted on being the one to port their JVM. Reading the blog post by Gosling will tell you that. And thirdly, they didn't do it "for free" (at least in the early days - not sure about the last few years). I was at Javasoft back then, and Sun funded some Apple engineers to work on the port.

I don't have a problem with someone else (say, Sun^H^H^HOracle) doing the port - it would be more timely, up-to-date, etc. I just wish they would have had a something worked out saying "We're not gonna support our JVM, and Oracle will be doing this starting on ...
 

Re:Oh honestly (3, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996224)

That was also back when Sun worked with other JVM's, as opposed to suing them out of existence like Oracle is doing. Apple probably lost those engineers and Oracle probably came to them and said now you have to pay us for the privilege.

Why are we blaming Apple when it's Oracle's policies that driving this particular change.

Re:Oh honestly (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996332)

That was also back when Sun worked with other JVM's, as opposed to suing them out of existence like Oracle is doing.

Huh? The grandparent specifically mentioned that Sun sued Microsoft's Java [javaworld.com] out of existence!

Re:Oh honestly (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996180)

Why is it that Apple is expected to be the only platform vendor that has to maintain their own version of the JVM for free?

Because it's their loss if they don't.
Windows has a major market already in business desktops, their JVM can't be dropped. Linux has a major market in the server business, their JVM can't be dropped. Apple has nothing to convince Oracle to support their JVM.

I don't understand why on Earth any Java dev would want to be stuck indefinitely with Apple's outdated implementation that by definition would never be a major priority rather then get a version from the main organization behind it.

Because the main organization doesn't have such version, and probably won't in the future even with this announcement. What's Oracle business case for supporting it?

If we had a fully open GPL edition of the JVM that was best of class like we should have gotten years ago, this never would have been an issue in the first place.

OpenJDK has been GPL for two years now. And there is [bikemonkey.org] an OSS BSD port of the JVM that runs on the Mac. The problem is that converting it to use the Mac's libraries instead if X11 and so it's hard work.

If someone is causing trouble, it's Apple for not releasing their JVM as OSS.

Javascript will get my respect when... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996048)

Javascript will not get my respect again until they stop creating APIs such as the 'evercookie javascript API'. They could at least put in the ability to stop this thing from executing on a computer. But that would defeat the point of creating this extreme attempt to force tracking cookies upon a private computer. I hope that this starts a huge class action lawsuit against Oracle.

Re:Javascript will get my respect when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996122)

I agree. I wish Oracle should stop "Ajaxing" my browser.

Re:Javascript will get my respect when... (1)

jgulla (6152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996156)

That's nice, but Apple is deprecating their port of *Java* and the *Java Virtual Machine*. Has nothing to do with the (unfortunately named) Javascript, which they are NOT deprecating.

Re:Javascript will get my respect when... (1)

ulski (1173329) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996170)

Javascript have nothing to do with Java. Java and javascript are 2 different languages. This article is about Java, not Javascript. Anyway blaming Javascript for evercookie is like blaming C or C++ for the millions of viruses written in those languages.

Yes and No... (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996056)

Ordinarily, their would be praise in the streets for Apple "deprecating" Java. They've done a consistently late and shitty job of keeping their port up to date, with only the benefit of having it be part of "system update" to show for it.

Given that their marketshare has grown, and Sun/Oracle does a decent and/or better than Apple did job of keeping it updated for other supported platforms, it seems likely that support will actually improve.

However, in the case of Apple, it isn't hard (or, typically, incorrect) to view anything that they do as being in service of their single-vendor-golden-cage control freak ideology. On the mobile, it is cryptographically enforced. On the desktop, the intent seems fairly clear to start with the soft sell "The Apple Store isn't the only way, just the best one" saith Jobs, and abrupt terminations of distribution of 3rd party technology are likely part of that.

Server/corporate users of OSX, rare but not nonexistent beasts, should be celebrating right now, since they'll now have actual Java, not Apple half-assery; but it is also likely the case that this is an attempt to make java an even more obscure and peripheral aspect of the OSX experience in general(in the same way that x11 is available; but is considered about as "un-Apple" as firing up Parallels, and probably less common).

Re:Yes and No... (2)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996446)

I don't know how many times it has to be said that there is no other JDK for Mac users to download. Besides this is not just about Java, it's about JVM and a host of languages like Scala, Groovy, JRuby, Clojure etc also run on the JVM.

In fact calling JVM, which is one of the coolest and technically most sophisticated technologies (JIT, hotspot) invented by man to date, legacy is idiotic (as opposed to the 80s objective c technology). But, then again Mac users are clueless about technology, so you can tell them what ever you want.

Anyone that has half a brain, and uses Mac OS X for their business should be thinking about migration strategy to something better as we speak. These are the first steps towards making Mac another appliance. Apple won't be happy until they kill the notion of general computing.

Just blame Steve (1)

MrJones (4691) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996066)

"Apple has enjoyed significant success recently accompanied by a widespread sense that they can do no wrong in
business or design."

Don't forget the "Just blame Steve for all the issues" that the media uses.

Having flash and java coming directly from the developers its what I'm use to and seems to be the best solution in order to get always the latest securest version.

What about Brocade Fiber Channel Switches? (1)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996074)

They use Java exclusively for their management interface..

Oh that's right.. no one uses OSX in the server world anyway.

Re:What about Brocade Fiber Channel Switches? (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996460)

Not even Apple does. They serve their corporate web site on Solaris and Linux, not XServe.

Apple isn't doing Sun's work for them.... (2, Informative)

Manip (656104) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996094)

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread so let me make this as clear as I can - Apple isn't blocking Sun/Oracle's ability to ship Java for the OS X platform, what they're doing is dropping internal maintenance for the platform from within Apple themselves. Up until now Apple has been porting Java to the OS X platform, and they're now discontinuing that and consequently removing it from their update system.

If someone else, including Sun/Oracle want to start maintaining a Java for OS X release they absolutely can - it just won't be available via OS X's automatic update scheme any longer (and won't be something Apple is paying for).

Re:Apple isn't doing Sun's work for them.... (4, Informative)

WebMink (258041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996254)

While saying "Apple isn't blocking Sun/Oracle's ability to ship Java for the OS X platform" sounds wonderful, it neglects reality. I'm guessing you should read both Gosling's posting [nighthacks.com] and my article [computerworlduk.com] . Gosling explains:

It simply isn't true that “Sun (now Oracle) supplies Java for all other platforms”. IBM supplies Java for IBM's platforms, HP for HP's, even Azul systems does the JVM for their systems (admittedly, these all start with code from Snorcle - but then, so does Apple). In the beginning, Microsoft provided Java for Windows ... Apple was the same ...

and I explain:

Having Oracle take over the development would be hard for several reasons:

  • First, the Java port in use includes a lot of Apple know-how that is not generally available (such as private interfaces) to make Java integrate well rather than using just X11.
  • Second, it belongs to Apple, so Oracle would either have to receive a copy of Apple's implementation or start again with all the UI and platform native code.
  • Third, distribution would move outside Apple's update mechanism so keeping it patched and secure would be difficult - a new installer and update mechanism will be needed.
  • Fourth, the new AppStore rules will make sure there's negligible demand for consumer Java on the Mac.

Your view would make a good Apple PR position but doesn't address the actual complexities of the situation.

Baby Steps (0, Troll)

retech (1228598) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996102)

It seems to me that this week has shown a clear step forward for Apple and the Mac OS. In the very near future Lion will no longer be a computer OS but an Apple Platform. The difference being the user will not be able to just have their way with the interface, the usage or what goes on the device. I've watched the evolution of my desktop and have to say the more "stable" it becomes the more it is owned by Apple and I'm just there to rent it. OS 9 was the last time we had an easy OS to tweak and customize. It was the last time Apple allowed you to just put anything on the machine and give it a go. While I do think there's a bit of an overly paranoid reaction from many of the Mac haters; I do think the AppStore is the death of the home user control. Eventually we will not be able to put anything on our computer without Apple's approval. This gives Apple a clear appeal to the media industry across the board: "Our system cannot run pirated media!" And it gives them the ability to shape the market to whatever they see profitable. Not running Java may be justified by various reasons, but at it's core, I suspect this is them just weeding the OS from any intruders so they can begin a process of lockdown. While simplicity may have it's elegance, for those of us who want a machine tailored specifically to them we may be looking elsewhere.

Re:Baby Steps (1)

iPaqMan (230487) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996248)

Call me when Apple takes root access away. Until then don't get your tinfoil panties in a bunch.

Re:Baby Steps (2, Interesting)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996382)

Honestly ... if you're so paranoid, don't buy Apple products. Or don't upgrade. Problem solved. But as a former Java developer who worked exclusively on a mac ... I can say that the Apple has slowly been distancing themselves from Java for awhile now. The fact that it took them two goddamn years to release Java6 was pretty telling and when they did release it, it was only for 64bit machines. It was truly maddening, especially considering how opaque apple can be.

But this fear of lockdown? That's just traffic driving sensationalism. And if it isn't ... if we do reach a day when you can't install an application on your macbook without apple's permission then that will be the day OSX itself becomes deprecated. That will probably be the year of the Linux desktop. Go knows, I wouldn't stick around.

Say good buy to hope of any java app in mac store (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996124)

Say good buy to hope of any java app in the new mac os app store And maybe even in web browsers in the app store.

Re:Say good buy to hope of any java app in mac sto (1)

iPaqMan (230487) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996274)

I will determine if a app is purchase worthy based on its function not on someones conjecture that it is a "Good Buy".

Re:Say good buy to hope of any java app in mac sto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33996306)

Say good buy to hope of any java app in the new mac os app store

Nobody will be saying "good buy", they will be saying "goodbye". No bad thing considering Java sucks even more than ObjC.

Really, this is just Apple saying "fuck off with your greasy Android apps". A pre-emptive strike against the low quality code and design that exists "over there".

oracle steping up or apple losing (1)

pinkishpunk (1461107) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996128)

unless oracle steps up and do provide java for future osX systems, it will be apple that is lossing out. An operating system without java will be unable to provide homebanking for a lot of users, hard to imagine consumers giving up on that. Having to use a virtual machine just to run an operating system, which has java support, will be a hard sell, especial with the "just works" motto of osx.

Put pressure on Oracle (1)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996178)

The ball is now in Oracle's court. It's their responsibility to provide a JVM for Mac, just like they have the responsibility of providing it for Windows, Linux and Solaris. Instead of people blaming Apple for slowly bowing out of their 2000 commitment, it's time to step up the pressure on Oracle to treat OS X like they do their other platforms.

And, yeah, I know that AIX and HPUX are exceptions, but OS X is a much larger platform that Oracle can't afford to ignore if they want to follow through on their JavaFX 2.0 commitment.

Re:Put pressure on Oracle (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 3 years ago | (#33996434)

I was going to post this as well, but I'll just agree with what you wrote. Originally Apple probably rolled its own JRE because it didn't think it had a large enough Java user base to force Sun to target OS X. Apparently Apple now thinks it does have a large enough user base to force Oracle's hand. So they stop rolling their own and let Oracle take the heat if it decides to abandon Mac users.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?