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!

WebObjects Now Free With Tiger

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the good-things-for-your-stocking dept.

Programming 296

Reverberant writes "Macworld reports that has Apple released WebObjects as a free application. From $50,000 to free, the software used to build the iTunes Music Store and Dell's original online store is now available for free to Tiger users via Xcode 2.1." From the article: " The software has historical importance to Apple-watchers: it was originally released in March 1996 - but not by Apple. In fact, WebObjects was developed by NeXT Computer and became Apple's software only when that company acquired Steve Jobs' second computer company later that year. While not software on the tip of every Mac users tongue, WebObjects sits behind several significant implementations - the most famous current example being Apple's iTunes Music Store."

cancel ×

296 comments

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

OK, I gotta say it (3, Insightful)

udderly (890305) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840315)

Free as in beer no doubt.

Re:OK, I gotta say it (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840445)

This is true, although there are a couple of open source projects (GNUstepWeb begin one, I can't remember the name of the other) which are open source versions of WebObjects 4.5, the last version to use Objective-C instead of Java. To me, they are more interesting, since they allow me to write Web, GNUstep and Cocoa front-ends to exactly the same back-end code.

Re:OK, I gotta say it (2, Funny)

DenDave (700621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840463)

Free beer? Where?

Obligatory (2, Funny)

MisterSquid (231834) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840495)

I just installed WebObjects 5.3 on my powerbook and now it's running much snappier.

Prelude to OpenSource? (3, Interesting)

parvenu74 (310712) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840541)

According to an article at AppleInsider.com [appleinsider.com] : "Employees working the show floor of the Apple's developers conference last week could be overheard discussing the prospect of open-sourcing the company's WebObjects environment used for rapidly building and deploying web-based applications." Perhaps releasing the dev kit for free is just the first step to going open source with it.

Re:OK, I gotta say it (1)

koi88 (640490) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840733)


Free as in beer no doubt.

More like in: Buy a sixpack of beer (Tiger), get one tanker full of wine free.

Easy (-1, Flamebait)

bodester17 (892112) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840324)

Now it is easier for blood sucking monopolies like M$ to copy the technology and make it less user friendly and have more security holes.

Re:Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840353)

I'm pretty sure if MS wanted to copy it that bad, they could've scraped together the $50,000 it cost in 1996.

Re:Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840376)

Get a life. Why do you open-source zealouts have to bad-mouth Microsoft (or as people like you would spell it, M$) in every story, even if it has nothing to do with Microsoft? This hatred towards Microsoft is ridiculous.

Re:Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840517)

Why do you open-source zealouts have to bad-mouth Microsoft (or as people like you would spell it, M$) in every story, even if it has nothing to do with Microsoft?

Probably the same reason you feel the need to bad-mouth open source zealots when responding to trolls in an Apple thread, even if it has nothing to do with open source.

Wow super cool! (0)

0xdeaddead (797696) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840327)

If only I had a need for it......

Why? (-1, Troll)

sammykrupa (828537) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840328)

Why would Apple do this? The average Tiger user does not ever now that when you access a website you are accessing a computer. Why Steve? Why!

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840408)

. . . Well, the average Tiger user will also never use the developer toolkit that came with the OS, but that doesn't stop Apple from including it, does it? Why does something have to be useful to every user to be released?

Re:Why? (0, Flamebait)

jrrl (635743) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840525)

Why does something have to be useful to every user to be released?

It doesn't. Just look at the legacy OS I need to delete from the hard drive every time I get a new laptop!

-John.

Re:Why? (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840650)

? I thought they stopped shipping with OS 9 quite a while ago. Now you just get Classic mode.

Re:Why? (1)

tourvil (103765) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840416)

Why would Apple do this? The average Tiger user does not ever now that when you access a website you are accessing a computer. Why Steve? Why!

If Apple only cared about this market, why would they even ship Xcode with their OS? And surely there is some significant percentage of Xcode users who would benefit from WebObjects...

Re:Why? (1, Offtopic)

indie1982 (686445) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840437)

That's a bit harsh on Tiger users when you yourself can't even construct a sentence with the right words in it!

Don't run before you can walk...

link to Apple's page (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840329)

free as in ??? (-1, Flamebait)

matt me (850665) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840331)

Free? This must be the same definition of freedom that you're given with audio files downloaded through iTunes.

PlayFair, Apple.

Re:free as in ??? (4, Funny)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840405)

Maybe you'd rather they buy you a Mac and give you all the software, including the source, for free? Or better yet, they should give you a Mac, PAY you to use it, and give you all the software for free. That will really help Apple thrive...

Re:free as in ??? (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840423)

Well, yes, if you're referring to the Free Download of the Week. Or the Free Sampler they had a few weeks ago.

Re:free as in ??? (1)

lp-habu (734825) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840497)

For those who may not have noticed, there is usually more than one "Free Download of the Week". Check down at the lower right of the main page and there will usually be at least three listings for free songs -- one of them is usually a mix or something which will stay around for multiple weeks, the others are one-week only.

Re:free as in ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840491)

Get a life, loser.

Re:free as in ??? (Parent is mis-modded) (1, Informative)

the_pooh_experience (596177) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840540)

The parent is absolutely right, WebObjects is not "free" in any sence of the word. It is not free as in freedom (i.e. not open), is not free as in no money. I haven't checked the license, but I guess it probably will not be free as in "free to do what you want with it."

However it is "free" as in you paid for a developers' tool kit [apple.com] and we are including this in with it. A better suited term would be "included at no extra charge" but that doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it? Mind you, I have no problem with them charging for the package, or at least charging for the tool kit, just with the refering to it as "free."

Re:free as in ??? (Parent is mis-modded) (1)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840601)

Not sure what you mean by it's free if you paid for a dev toolkit. It's part of Xcode 2.1 and Xcode can be downloaded freely by anyone. There is no charge to get an ADC account. And Xcode 2.1 will be included on new macs and likely on the 10.4.2 refresh DVDs. So no need to purchase anything but a mac. (you don't even need to buy a mac to get it, either).

Re:free as in ??? (Parent is mis-modded) (2, Informative)

stang7423 (601640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840652)

As of now WebObjects developer is free. Your can develop with only a copy of Apples free dev tools. Now Deploying requires a License of 10.4 Server which will put you back $499 ($299 if your educational). This dev kit you talk about was the Tiger quick start kit, to allow developers to get tiger early. Apple's Dev Tool have been free from the start. Stop spreading FUD.

In other new the rumblings around WWDC was that Apple is planning on open sourcing WebObjects, which would then make it free. More on that here [appleinsider.com] .

Re:free as in ??? (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840758)

Um no , its the same definition as in Get X free with your purchase of Y.
how are they not playing fair though ? They are being rather fair i would say since there was no moral obligation for them to do this

free already (-1, Troll)

patrickoehlinger (445411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840332)

Weakup! WebObject was free since quite some time, just not included in XCode.

Re:free already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840510)

I believe it was only the runtime environment, and not the developer tools. You had to buy the server veriosn of OSX to get the runtime.

Re:free already (1)

byolinux (535260) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840814)

Er.. weren't they selling it for 299 dollars up until like a fortnight ago?

What is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840335)

Is webobjects something ASP or j2ee (or whatever they're called)?

Re:What is it? (1)

DeVryGuy23 (869999) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840550)

It's basically Apple's J2EE container

Apple learns fast? (0)

dysprosia (661648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840344)

When NeXT was selling NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, excellent software, for ridiculously expensive prices, they got into trouble, unfortunately.

Now Apple, are they beginning to learn? Though $999 for a Developer Transition Kit to OS X/Intel doesn't seem to suggest it...

Re:Apple learns fast? (4, Informative)

Jarnis (266190) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840367)

Doesn't that 999$ include a (lease) of a computer system? It's not just the price of the software...

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

dysprosia (661648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840390)

Does it? I was unaware.

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

captnitro (160231) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840421)

Yeah, it's $999 for a lease - the package has to be returned sometime in 2006. Moreover, you have to be a Select or Premier member, which are $500 or $3,500, so if you're looking for just a shiny new OS X intel box to play with, you'll be shelling out quite a bit. :)

Re:Apple learns fast? (2, Funny)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840705)

I called it the most expensive pentium 4 ever shipped, they banned me from chatroom. :)

Re:Apple learns fast? (0)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840393)

Isn't that $999 missing another 9 ?

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840505)

No. [apple.com]

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840567)

From your link:

The development system has the preview release of Mac OS X Tiger on Intel pre-installed, allowing you to run, verify, and debug your Universal Binary application.

If it doesnt come with a computer system, whats it preinstalled on? Yes, theres no 'This includes a full Intel based computer system' wording, but it does hint at it, including using terms like 'Use of a Developer Transition System' and 'pre-installed' and 'pre-loaded'.

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840577)

Ignore me, I misnoticed what parent you were replying to, apologies.

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840626)

Doesn't that 999$ include a (lease) of a computer system? It's not just the price of the software...

Right, but it's a computer you didn't need until Apple decided to change their corporate strategy.

And, it's a $200 mobo in a $100 case with a $60 hard drive and $100 worth of RAM. So by all accounts, Apple's making money on this computer.

Apple should be selling them for $499 or less - who cares if the developers have them in the end? - it's just a PC.

Would they take a loss on each machine at $499? Perhaps a little, but it would be small. And Apple would get many more developers involved.

At $999 for a lease, sure Adobe, Microsoft, and Quark are going to have one. Dozens of other companies will follow, no doubt.

But Apple needs every shareware developer to have one months before the Intel launch. At $499, most all of them would say, "nice PC in a Mac case - good deal, I'll get one". At $999 for a lease they think, "Eh, I made $600 on that program over the past two years - I'll wait until it's time to refresh my system."

With $7B in the bank Apple can afford to do this. They'd be able to claim 10,000 apps native for Intel at next year's WWDC. Why they're not investing in their future (and a really cheap investment at that) is flabbergasting.

This isn't the place to make a profit.

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840768)

I don't think profit is the main motivation behind the pricing scheme. I think it's moreso to act as a detterent to people who just want the Apple Intel machine earlier than everyone else. Plus it won't eat into their current hardware sales. Furthermore, they also probably haven't ramped up their manufacturing capability enough so that they can sell it at that low price point. By allowing oly their top developers to buy, they ensure that they have enough so that everyone who is serious about OS X development can get one, but not allowing people who just want to toy with it to get one(easily)
I'm not making a judgement call, but I don't think you took everything into consideration in your post....

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

tequesta (442108) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840798)

You have quite obviously no idea what developer kits cost anywhere else in the industry. Even in software: Visual Studio .NET alone costs more than $999.

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

mccoyspace (590866) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840389)

you do know that the $999 includes the computer that the development software runs on, so how is that a rip off?

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

dysprosia (661648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840401)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=153046&cid=128 40390 [slashdot.org]

Though my point still remains, regardless.

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

MadEE (784327) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840522)

Though my point still remains, regardless.

Your point was it was excessively expensive, that is just plain not true when you consider the bulk of the cost behind that is the pre-release small run hardware (something you were not aware of).

Re:Apple learns fast? (1)

dysprosia (661648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840535)

When NeXT was selling NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, excellent software, for ridiculously expensive prices, they got into trouble, unfortunately.

Now Apple, are they beginning to learn?


No, my point was that Apple might be learning from its time when NeXT sold NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP for very high prices.

Re:Apple learns fast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840483)

Dude! That Developer Transition Kit has a PowerMac in it - an Intel PowerMac, no less - you do have to give it back, but they needed to find money from somewhere! And they're doing a great job...

WebObject is great .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840354)

But they have just missed the J2EE revolution.

They have tried to fit the gap, but it was too late, now J2EE opensource are booming and they are about to take the enterprise world.

Re:WebObject is great .... (1)

City Jim 3000 (726294) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840585)

Except that Java isn't opensource of course...

Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840357)

I wonder if this is the same software used to build the iTunes Music Store? I can't tell.

Re:Hmmmm (2, Informative)

macshome (818789) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840688)

Um, like the summary says, it is.

It's also what runs the .mac site and the online Apple store.

Maybe there's a reason it's free. (1, Interesting)

MurrayTodd (92102) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840369)

I haven't actually developed with WebObjects; my web-programming background has been either LAMP or JSP/J2EE, but I've noticed that many of the worst, most non-responsive web-pages are designed with WebObjects. (You can tell by the URLs.) I don't know if that means that people programming with WebObjects have on average less training and architectural design experience, or if it's ultimately a more broken architecture, but personally it would take a lot for me to ever consider it as an architectural choice.

Re:Maybe there's a reason it's free. (2, Insightful)

newdamage (753043) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840457)

What, you mean like Apple.com and the Itunes music store? Yes, those highly visited sites are just non-responsive and clunkly.

That's like saying because somebody's first attempt at website that uses JSPs and Tomcat is slow and clunkly must mean that J2EE is a broken architecture.

Re:Maybe there's a reason it's free. (5, Informative)

roard (661272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840492)

WebObjects was (and still is) one of the most powerful web application system. Much more sensible than a lot of stuff :-)

EOF -- an object relational mapper, providing isolation from the database and from the database model -- in particular is very, very nice. Not the final answer to everything, but still quite cool :-)

The sad thing with Apple's current WebObjects is that it's only java (it's even a J2EE environment), while originally (at NeXT) it was Objective-C based (plus WebScript, an ObjC-like script language). They dropped the Objective-C bit with WebObjects 5, sadly (4.5 had ObjC and Java). Well, ok, beeing a J2EE env has its own advantages, but still...

The documentation of WO 4.5 is here [apple.com] , the documentation for the current WO is here [apple.com] .

There is a free software implementation of WebObjects 4.5 from the GNUstep project [gnustep.org] , GNUstepWeb [gnustepweb.org] , which work well. OpenGroupware.org [opengroupware.org] also has its own WO 4.5 implementation, NGObjWeb, which works very well too (it's the foundation of SOPE [opengroupware.org] ). I wrote an article [roard.com] showing how to do simple (html) components, but it's in french ;-)

Though, if you want to discover a really interesting project, have a look to Seaside [seaside.st] . It's inspired by WebObjects, with an excellent component model, but is even better (support of continuations, etc). And it's completely dynamic, letting you change things at runtime easily (Smalltalk rulez ;-). It's one of the best thing I know :-)

Re:Maybe there's a reason it's free. (4, Interesting)

bstarrfield (761726) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840494)

And some of the best Web sites have been done using WebObjects, including the Apple Store (http://www.apple.com/store [apple.com] ) and the entire infrastructure for iTunes. Don't blame the tool for lousy site workflow.

However, I would say that the people who program in WO tend to understand a great deal about software architecture and theoretical IT issues - but in truth, many WO programmers are former NeXT GUI programmers who always will look on the Web as a bastard UI.

WebObjects is a fantastic development environment, a hell of a lot nicer than JSP/J2EE, but requires substantially more training than the lamp stack.

Re:Maybe there's a reason it's free. (1)

new500 (128819) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840559)

many of the worst, most non-responsive web-pages are designed with WebObjects. etc.

another example:

No longer the case, but the original Dell.com was a webobjects project.

This changed, i believe, due to FrogDesign handling a makeover and their developer preferences / skillset (over and above their UI engineering, which was why they won the pitch), not for any technical reasons.

Didn't do Dell any harm to use webobjects, now did it? :)

Someone may be able to correct or refine my Dell/FrogDesign history. Please do if you can.

Re:Maybe there's a reason it's free. (2, Interesting)

chris_martin (115358) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840769)

As I remember it, Dell _had_ to switch when Apple bought NeXT. They have an internal company policy that they don't buy competitors products. Once Apple bought NeXT, WebObjects was owned by a competing computer company, no more WebObjects for the Dell store. There was also a side story that the original Dell store was online in something like two weeks and it took a team of Microsoft developers 3-6 months to re-create the site in ASP, but I can't remember the exact details. Good story at the time though.

Re:Maybe there's a reason it's free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840780)

Most experienced developers know that you can shoot your toes off with any one of the gazillion APIs out there, J2EE and JSP being no exception. To judge an API that you don't know by the sites you've seen that are slow seems premature unless you know you're getting to a decent sample size of what's out there.

Speaking as an AC who's developed several mission critical applications for large banks, I can attest that the API is bloody fantastic.. but you can misuse it just like anything else. We'd regularly put our apps under cruel stress testing (thousands of simulated users clicking each link on successive pages with zero wait time), but then that was just us (detected a high-volume race condition that way in a third party library too).

As other posters have said, EOF (Enterprise Objects Framework) is really the crown jewels of the whole thing. Come for WO, stay for EOF. I'm not doing WO development currently, but would kill to get back to it at some point. The api's are so elegant it's hard to switch to other APIs.

And of course, the whole thing (speaking for the web and app tiers) scales linearly per machine. That iTunes music store seems pretty fast to me...

Meh. YMMV, with everything, as everyone knows.

Deployment license, development license, or both (3, Interesting)

fhmiv (740648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840372)

A few questions that are unanswered by the article and Apple's store. Does Mac OS X client include a deployment license? What about Mac OS X server? What about deployment licenses for other platforms, like Solaris or Linux? I think a fair number of existing WebObjects deployments are on platforms other than Mac OS X.

Re:Deployment license, development license, or bot (4, Informative)

fhmiv (740648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840414)

I managed to answer some of my questions by looking at http://www.apple.com/webobjects/ [apple.com] . Tiger Client includes a development license for WebObjects. Tiger Server includes a deployment license.

Re:Deployment license, development license, or bot (4, Informative)

egghat (73643) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840645)

There has been a discussion about this a few days ago at heise.de (this is rather old news from the last Apple Developer meeting, but was buried under the big news of switch to Intel).

The news seems to boil down to this:

a) WebObjects Development (not deployment) is included in XCode and therefore free.

b) WebObjects Deployment is included for free with Tiger Server.

c) Other licences aren't available any longer. So that means, that you'll have to buy MacOS Tiger Server to get a valid licence. Deployment on all other platforms isn't supported any longer (it should work, cause it's java only, but there's no guarantee).

If Apple doen't change its mind on point c, this news is not good news ...

Bye egghat.

Database (1)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840374)

Is there a database that comes with it too?

Re:Database (4, Funny)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840436)

Is there a database that comes with it too?

Well, here's what the WebObjects home page has this to say on the subject:

"..extends your reach by ensuring flexible, maintainable design... build or use standards-based web services.. enable code-free generation, configuration and testing... standards-based web services... opening up enterprise development ... on a classic three-tier architecture with intrinsic clustering support... deliver maintainable, scalable applications... create enterprise-level web services backed by robust business logic ...object-oriented frameworks to transparently use the automated data persistence..."

Having read that, I can quite confidently say that I have NFI.

Re:Database (2, Informative)

stang7423 (601640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840490)

Well, the short answer is yes.

It uses JDBC database connectivity and OS X Server ships with MySQL installed.

I bet you didn't know that... (0)

Xenna (37238) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840397)

WebObjects was used to build the Itunes music store!

(dupes within a post, that's a first, or isn't it...?)

Re:I bet you didn't know that... (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840424)

Not until the headline I read mentioned it!

Re:I bet you didn't know that... (1)

Xenna (37238) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840502)

I hope you're joking, just like the person that just modded me interesting ;)

Re:I bet you didn't know that... (1)

ClaraBow (212734) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840472)

This is another tool that will help more people adopt OSX. From the information I've gathered from Apple, it seems that there are a lot of visual tools to help a person keep track of their projects (great for me). Also the database tools are quite impressive. We just have to wait and see how "free" this really is, but it is wonderfu to have access to it without having to pay for it.

Damn it! (3, Funny)

Hyksos (595814) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840410)

I bought WebObjects yesterday!

Re:Damn it! (2, Funny)

DavidLeblond (267211) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840478)

Thats pretty sad since it was free like 2 weeks ago. :)

Re:Damn it! (1)

verdot (892849) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840520)

Well, you still need another license for deployment, which is currently only available as part of Tiger Server. Thus, if you want to use WO seriously, you haven't wasted any money! (At least until the deployment parts will be available for free.)

Re:Damn it! (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840695)

If you check mac newsgroups, there are people who purchased quicktime pro 6.5 2 days before Quicktime 7 shipped.

Apple doesn't give a free license to them or give their money back so your joke would be real!

Free if you buy a MacOS X Server! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840422)

The article quoted only explains the WebObjects DEVELOPMENT environment.

While Apple did give you free WebObjects 5.3 Development on every XCode 2.1, you have to buy a MacOS X Tiger Server to run the applications. Yes, you can still build a WAR file to deploy the application on Tomcat/JBoss/Jetty [darcynorman.net] but you still need the server license to deploy your applications.

The old way (pay $699usd, you get development environment on Mac and Windows, plus deployment on any JVM):
You can deploy WebObjects 5.0 to 5.2.4 applications on any Windows, Linux [tetlabors.de] , Solaris, MacOS X and even FreeBSD [tetlabors.de] with a compliant JVM. In short, WebObjects 5.0 - 5.2.4, you spent $699 usd to buy from Apple (I bought my copy $88 usd from eBay. Apple used to has student developer discount for $99 usd).

The New Way ("Free development license, but $$$$ on each deployment license from Tiger server):
Enough said, starting from 5.3, you've to buy the license for each deployment license.

Anyway I'm pissed because I like to write apps on my Powerbook, and deploy the apps to my Debian Linux server running Apache with mod_webobjects adaptor. I would never switch to a Apple machine running Tiger Server.

Look I love WebObjects... with all the Direct To Web and the EOF goodies, it runs circles around Ruby on Rails and the EJB/JDO toys... but I felt being sold by Apple this time.

-cocoa ninja

Re:Free if you buy a MacOS X Server! (3, Interesting)

bstarrfield (761726) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840531)

Actually, Apple is somewhat ambivalent about how to deploy. We know that Apple personnel read Slashdot - perhaps someone from Apple will explain whether we can actually deploy with a .WAR package on a platform besides Mac OS X Sever.

WebObjects used to be authored in Objective-C. WO developers were very happy. Then Apple decided that Java would be the Next Great Thing and removed Objective-C support and transitioned to Java - causing a great number of previous WO sites and developers to give up the toolkit.

Of course, one of the major reasons to port WO to Java was to use it in an enterprise environment. Now Apple wants us only to deploy on X server, somewhat breaking the point of the entire Java transition. Ah well....

license risk (1)

cahiha (873942) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840658)

Well, that's one of the biggest risks with proprietary software: the company changes licensing terms on you. Another big risk is that they change APIs or other parts of the software.

The solution? Contribute to an open source project and make it do what you want it to do. There are plenty of open source systems like WebObjects; help improve them.

Re:license risk (2)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840711)

obstarwarsreference: "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further" could be a commentary on closed source.

Where and How (1)

MisterSquid (231834) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840455)

For those of you who are wondering how to get a hold of Apple's XCode 2.1, you can do so here [apple.com] . Before you download, you'll need an Apple Developer Connection account [apple.com] , a free registration.

Re:Where and How (1)

frankie (91710) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840816)

Sadly, Apple doesn't have a Torrent link, which is an obvious choice for a 770MB file. 2 hours to download software in this day and age, bleah.

Says a lot about software pricing (1)

zakkie (170306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840464)

If it really went from $50k to $0, I think it says a lot about the crazy prices that software costs. It's obviously priced by good 'ol thumb suck & guess work . Also, after a certain point, your initial development costs are completely covered, and whatever sales you achieve thereafter is almost pure profit. If you reach that point before the end of the product cycle, IMHO you've then over-charged. Disclaimer: IANAE (I am not an economist) of course :/

Re:Says a lot about software pricing (1)

the quick brown fox (681969) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840611)

In other words, software companies don't deserve to make a profit?

Re:Says a lot about software pricing (2, Insightful)

Phil John (576633) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840625)

If you reach that point before the end of the product cycle, IMHO you've then over-charged

No it doesn't, first of all, if you were able to sell that software at that price (and made a profit) then you where charging what the market would sustain. If you didn't shift enough units, then you would have charged too little (or misjudged the need for the app in the first place). You also may have developed the software early and under-budget (hah) so whilst the perceived value of the product is still high, you get your initial investment back sooner.

At the end of the day, companies will be willing to pay big bucks for software for three very good reasons:

  1. It would cost them more to implement themselves
  2. No cheaper/free alternative, or cheaper/free alternative doesn't have all the required features
  3. It will make them money over time
The last point is the most important, Dell used WebObjects to sell who knows how many million units before shifting to something else. WebObjects was probably the best tool for the job at the time, so some part of those sales can probably be attributed to it.

Re:Says a lot about software pricing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840714)

You are only overcharged in the same way that you are overcharged for a Pizza Hut pizza, which if priced by the price of ingredients, would be $1 a pie.

Apple is simply hoping to drive WebObjects adoption, so that they can drive sales of Mac OS X server, which is where you really will be paying for WebObjects.

What For? (5, Funny)

Walrus99 (543380) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840470)

What for? I still got my Claris Home Page 3.0. Makes web pages that download easily are are compatible with 99% of the browsers in use. Runs great under Classic too.

Re:What For? (2, Funny)

timmerk15 (753792) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840676)

v2.0 was way better. I still have that on some cd somewhere.

Re:What For? (2, Funny)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840740)

Hey, I'm still using textedit you insensitive clod!

In other Apple News (0, Offtopic)

kc0re (739168) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840501)

Apple has dropped their 1.8 Ghz PowerMac.. Is this aiming more towards things to come? Click here for the Dropped 1.8 Ghz PowerMac entry [is-a-geek.net]

Re:In other Apple News (0, Offtopic)

vegetablespork (575101) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840778)

Yah, I'm replying to an offtopic post. But I'm $rtbl'd and have karma to burn.

Anyways, I can't see why even the most rabid Apple fan would buy a PPC based Mac right now, knowing it's a dead end. And while I'm certainly guilty of indulging in trolling Mac zealots (which is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I digress), I honestly wonder in this case.

No rails? (1)

gregRowe (173838) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840572)

I don't want to use web objects until they put some rails on it. Or maybe if they clean it with a chemical cleaner...

dell's website now runs .Net (1)

dioscaido (541037) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840609)

Any idea why Dell dropped Web Objects in favor of an Asp .Net system? It can't have been a small move, which would involve not only recoding their app, but moving to win2k3 servers.

Re:dell's website now runs .Net (2, Informative)

stang7423 (601640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840678)

Most Likely because WebObjects now only runs in OS X. Dell probably hasn't used WebObjects for about 7 years now, right about the time Apple bought Next. It was there original store that was coded in WebObjects.

Re:dell's website now runs .Net (1)

macshome (818789) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840701)

IIRC it was at MS's urging. The change happened very quickly after Apple bought NeXT.

Dell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12840661)

Can anyone tell me what technology Dell is using now and why they stopped using WebObjects? thanks!

Re:Dell (1)

dioscaido (541037) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840687)

If you browse their site, you'll see .aspx extensions. That's Microsoft ASP .Net.

Forcing us towards OS X as a server platform (1)

Glyndwr (217857) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840664)

I'm not enough of a Big Iron guy to know if there's rampant holes in these benchmarks or not, but this benchmark set at Anandtech [anandtech.com] (and other pages in that article) suggests the Mach kernel in OS X isn't the greatest for high end server stuff. So is this the smartest move Apple could make?

As for the viability of WebObjects, well... I'm currently a J2EE developer working with in-house libraries. Once I get my thesis written I'm going to spend some time with one of the next generation web development platforms; either some more Java libraries (Spring/Webwork/Hibernate), Rails, or Seaside. I'm afraid WebObjects is a good long way down my list, and I'm a daily OS X user! I'd maybe have thought about it if I could have rolled out onto Tomcat, but now I can't, well, it appeals to me even less.

WebObjects is Awesome (4, Informative)

jimijon (608416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840746)

I have been developing a hosted application (Application as a Service) with WebObjects and I must say it has completely spoiled me over all these other technologies. I have been able to rollout release after release of high quality, maintainable, fast and scalable code. I have used quite a few other technologies except for Ruby and .Net, but I really cannot believe that productivity I have had with WebObjects. Plus, its caching has made people comment on "is this really a web application". It so far has played nicely with other frameworks, like jFreeChart, and I cannot recommend WebObjects enough. It kind of reminds me of some article I read where a company chose to use LISP. They were able to constantly stay ahead of the competition etc., until Yahoo bought them out. Well, WebObjects has been our secret weapon and we are able to run rings around the competition wih our productivity. - jimijon

Nice introduction to WebObjects (4, Informative)

lub (188080) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840822)

Right here [rentzsch.com] .

all i want for christmas is an xcode php debugger. (4, Interesting)

pstreck (558593) | more than 9 years ago | (#12840823)

Apple, apple, apple... all I really want is xcode to have as good as support for LAMP (PHP mainly) as it does with java and obj c.. please apple, pretty please.....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>