WebObjects Now Free With Tiger 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."
OK, I gotta say it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe there's a reason it's free. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Says a lot about software pricing (Score:3, Insightful)
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:
Re:AnandTech report flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
He'd have done better to use OS X Server with the shipped MySQL, of course, as your source points out. Apple's platform isn't fully mainstream for either GCC or MySQL, and it's hardly unfair to allow Apple's own tweaks to these packages to be used in the test. It's still a pretty real-world test he's doing, so it's not like it can be cheated.
Maybe it was deliberate bias, but I try not to suspect evil when simple incompetence can explain it.
Re:COMPLETELY Misses the Point!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but with the switch to the Intel Platform, perhaps Apple may let OS X Server run on servers made by different companies which in turn would come along with WebObjects. For example, Dell [slashdot.org], since he said that he would offer OS X to customers if Apple were so willing.
Also, if .Mac Homepages allow for WebObjects, then that would make it interesting. Buy a Mac, subscribe to .Mac, and not only do you have WebObjects, but the server to deploy your site from. And you use iSync to keep what you have online synchronised with what's on your computer.
Re:You should read docs before making statements (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ASP.NET Better (Score:3, Insightful)
> dead, except for internal use at apple.
It's thin client software. So it just doesn't matter what you use on the server. It's your choice. I haven't used anything
This "almost universally recognised" (whatever that means) is a perhaps somewhat more than an altogether generous bit controversial.