[telemachos]

Here is Steve Jobs verbatim: And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

What the author points out is that it's odd (hypocritical?) for Jobs to pick on Adobe as the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X when Apple itself has not finished that transition (iTunes) and was very slow to do so in some cases (Finder).

I did use "in effect" to avoid going back and getting a quotation. I was lazy. But the quotation is there. I think it's overkill to describe me as using a straw man argument.

[pohl]

The author is wrong here, because that sentence exists to support the decision to not allow Adobe to interpose themselves between Apple's platform APIs and developers. Neither the Finder nor iTunes presented an impediment to improving the platform because neither of them interpose in any significant manner. That they have managed to bring MacOS X this far without touching them is evidence of this.

Regardless, Apple's own development is under Apple's own control. The current question is why they are not willing to be at the mercy of a vendor that is not only beyond Apple's control, but also has an established history of lagging. You may not like their decision, but it is prudent, consistent with their stated values, and consistent with their actions.

The author did not understand the function of this paragraph, and based his attack on a faulty interpretation.

I'm surprised that so many denizens of HN seem to be having trouble with the concept of a chain of dependencies, and how that makes the cases of iTunes and the Finder very different.