So, now, in order to submit an app for approval and have it accepted, it must be written in (presumably) XCode and be implemented in Obj-C, C, or C++ and link only to Apple’s own frameworks or other frameworks written in native code and linking against Apple’s frameworks. No intermediary linking or abstraction layer is allowed. This, effectively, means no more Monotouch, no more compile-to-iPhone in Flash CS5, and no more of the few other intermediary tools available to write iPhone apps in other languages.

This has a few people upset.

My initial reaction to this from a native iPhone developer’s viewpoint was summed up in one word. “Okay.” I really didn’t care. I don’t use any of the aforementioned tools and don’t plan or have any desire to. Therefore, I certainly didn’t think other people were seriously developing apps with these tools either. I see now that I was wrong about that, and I should probably spend a few minutes looking at some of these tools just to be aware of what’s out there.

However, even after being enlightened to the fact that serious developers wanted and relied upon these tools, I still didn’t care much that Apple is banning them. Once again, it doesn’t affect me directly. If it has any effect on me at all, it would be a good one. In that, people with my skill set are now in higher demand. At least until all of the defected intermediary-developers learn and become proficient with native Cocoa-Touch.

So, why is Apple doing this? I think it’s simple. Because they can. There are many reasons, genuine or otherwise, to cut out this type of code. the Human Interface Guideline that Apple promotes so strongly, app performance, experience uniformity. Not to mention, if one of these intermediary frameworks becomes so popular that more people are developing using it than native Cocoa-Touch, then Apple has lost all control over apps on their platform. If they introduce new API’s, they must wait for the intermediary framework to supply it’s own usage of these API’s before those features will make it into apps. Not to mention it’s a big middle finger to Adobe.

So that’s my two cents.

First is the importance the author places on culture in terms of it’s effect on success. That is that, where you come from has a LOT to do with your potential success. Not just what income bracket your family falls into, or what side of the tracks you grew up on (the author does discuss this however) but also the values and morals that the culture you come from has. This is related to the title of this post and I’ll get into that a little more in the next section.

The title of this post is an old Chinese proverb that, as the author explains, conflicts strongly with many western and especially American proverbs. Chinese, and many Far East cultures and economies are based completely around rice farming. It has served as currency, food, wealth and it’s role is summed up best in the statement: Rice is Life. Rice is a year round crop that requires relatively small plots of land to grow. It requires much skill in irrigation, fertilization, and grooming of the crop in order to have a successful harvest, however. It is a sun up to sun down year round job. But it is not resented, it is instead cherished. This is because rice IS life. The harder you work on your rice crop, the more benefits you have in life. This satisfies one of the three “magic” ingredients values that the author feels successful people grow up around. That is that they see a direct correlation to working harder and seeing more reward. This would be a difficult value to learn growing up on a corn farm that is VERY busy in the spring and fall but is generally calm during the summer and near dormant in the winter. The direct correlation that could be made in that instance would be that more land equals more reward, as the main resource for a more successful corn farm would be land.

The author believes this lesson and the other 2 “magic” ingredient values (which you’ll have to read the book to find out what they are) have caused the Far East cultures to develop a different attitude toward work. All kids in China go to school year round. A summer break is something almost unheard of outside of western culture. The author feels that the agricultural rhythm of hard work, rest, hard work, rest has ingrained in us the compulsion to balance hard work with rest. So while our kids are sitting at home all summer watching television, the rest of the worlds kids are in school getting a head start. I’d like to reiterate that this doesn’t mean American kids aren’t as smart as Asian kids. Actually to the contrary. It’s simply that our culture has provided us with different values. The Asian culture holds the idea that if a man works hard, then he will attain success.

I’m not proposing we take away summer break, I just think it’s interesting to think about and observe. The idea that our culture has such profound impacts on us in an almost sub-conscious way. If that sounds interesting to you too, then I urge you to check out Outliers and let me know what you think of it when you are through.

The basic idea is that anyone wildly successful in their field and heads above anyone else, never got there purely out of talent. Surely, all that have, take Bill Gates for example, are immensely talented and deserving of their position. But no matter how much it appears that person got to where they are by pure grit, determination, hard work, and talent, there’s also other factors that allowed that person to rise to the level of success that they have achieved.

The first of those factors is luck and happenstance. Behind every wildly successful person is a series of “just happened to” events. That Bill Gates just happened to have access to a Mainframe terminal from the 8th grade, that a classmate had a parent that just happened to work for a company willing to fund his schools computer program, that he, and Paul Allen, just happened to be the only people a certain company could find expert enough in the software their company ran on, and so on.

The second, being much more interesting to me, is that every successful genius is also a product of the environment that they grew up, matured, and learned in. Gladwell compares and contrasts a man named Chris Langon (a semi-famous genius with an IQ of 195) and J. Robert Oppenheimer (the lead scientist of the Manhattan Project). Langon growing up in a small town in the middle of nowhere in a dysfunctional family with an abusive father while skating through high school. Langon eventually goes to and drops out of college due to a discrepancy with his full-ride scholarship being dropped after his first semester. Instead of fighting, negotiating, surviving the hardship, Langon leaves and goes back home. Eventually enrolling in a state school and eventually dropping out again after a dean refused to let him change classes to accommodate his schedule. Again instead of fighting, convincing, surviving Langon dropped out. Eventually Langon ends up relatively unkown, especially considering he is likely the smartest person alive. Oppenheimer, in contrast, grew up in a well-to-do home with supportive, successful parents who encouraged him to follow his interests. At one point Oppenheimer ended up attempting to poison a professor in college, and instead of being arrested, kicked out, jailed for what he had done, he managed to get nothing more than probation. Time after time, Oppenheimer is met with seemingly insurmountable circumstances and manages to survive in spite of it. Gladwell does a much better job of telling the story and I highly recommend the book so far.

I find the idea encouraging for this reason. If every highly successful person did not get there by pure talent, but is a product of both luck and the ability to overcome obstacles, then the inverse of that idea must also be true. That if you are “smart enough”, one can become highly successful by recognizing the fact that though there are more talented people out there, with a little luck, a little charisma, and a lot of determination, there’s nothing saying one cannot also enjoy success.