Print 44 comment(s) - last by Azure Sky.. on Sep 13 at 1:35 PM

Perhaps company was visited by a very early Christmas ghost -- or more likely is desperate to beat Android

Apple gave its iOS developers some shocking news today -- it was reallowing ports using third-party tools, including ports of Flash apps.  The company writes:

We are continually trying to make the App Store even better. We have listened to our developers and taken much of their feedback to heart. Based on their input, today we are making some important changes to our iOS Developer Program license in sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.9 to relax some restrictions we put in place earlier this year.
In particular, we are relaxing all restrictions on the development tools used to create iOS apps, as long as the resulting apps do not download any code. This should give developers the flexibility they want, while preserving the security we need.
In addition, for the first time we are publishing the App Store Review Guidelines to help developers understand how we review submitted apps. We hope it will make us more transparent and help our developers create even more successful apps for the App Store.

That announcement seems particularly amazing given that in April Apple CEO Steve Jobs responded to one disgruntled developer's accusations that he was playing Scrooge, commenting, "We’ve been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform."

This about-face comes after news hit that Google's Android had passed the iPhone in U.S. market share.  Other recent studies have also confirmed that Apple's smartphone market share is in a downward slide while Android is surging upwards.  Apple has denied that this is happening.

We are awaiting comment from Adobe about whether this means that the converter to port Flash apps to Objective C code will now be restored to the Creative Suite.

Even though Apple is once again being generous with the tools developers use, it's unlikely that opens its tightly closed gates to Flash itself.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You know what always made me scratch my head?
By quiksilvr on 9/9/2010 11:08:36 AM , Rating: 3
How come on my old Pentium 4 with an ancient integrated intel video card, I was able to download a 720p clip from YouTube and play it on Media Player Classic with the K-Lite Codec Pack and use around 30% of my CPU but then my computer literally died when it tries to do so with Flash 10.1?

And yes, I understand its actually an .mp4 clip not .flv, but I have seen similar results with .flv videos as well. Why can't Adobe simply use the codecs available and give us a decent online video player?

I was able to watch a 360p clip using an online Divx player and use ~20% cpu whereas on youtube its close to 50-60%. It doesn't make sense. It's not because its .flv, its because their player sucks.

By amanojaku on 9/9/2010 11:17:03 AM , Rating: 2
Flash is container format like any other and supports a variety of CODECS, although not as many as MPC or VLC. You may be looking at an FLV with one of the older, sub-optimal CODECs. And, yes, Flash is still bloated.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By Lerianis on 9/10/2010 10:15:18 AM , Rating: 2
Considering Flash is ONLY 10MB's installed on the computer.... I don't call that bloated.

The real problem is that Flash has only had INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS! It needs a total rewrite, while still trying to keep backwards compatibility with older applications, in order to see any real speed increases.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By B3an on 9/11/2010 7:24:58 AM , Rating: 3
All you people above that say stuff like this have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, do you ever read into this stuff, just assume this nonsense, or say it because others do?

Flash is completely different now to what it was when it was released around the mid 90's. It's had massive updates to the developer software and the player, soon it will also be getting true 3D capabilities and tools.
It's also on it's 3rd version of it's programming language (Action Script).

Since Flash began it's gone from software that could only do very basic animation and limited coding, to something that supports surround audio, multiple image formats, advanced coding and game development, application creation, new languages, XML, CMS, PHP, HTML, and TXT file interaction support aswell as many other web languages, support for multiple video formats and the ability to play multiple video file types - not just FLV/F4V (like .MP4 / .M4V / .3GP), advanced video streaming capabilities, it can display a full HTML page inside of the Flash Player itself, professional tools and drawing tools that rival Adobe's best graphics software, many server side technologies, hardware acceleration... all this in one single piece of software. Theres nothing else remotely as powerful for a web dev like myself. And for the user the latest 10.1 Player is only a 2.66MB download, which is very impressive for what they've packed into there.

Now you wonna see real slow improvements? Look no futher than HTML. It's been around for decades, i think it's also loosely based on a language from the 70's. Yet Even the 5th version (HTML5) is not complete until 2012. Which still wont be 10% as capable as Flash. Yet i've seen people say "flash is old tech" ... what a joke.
Flash will always be miles ahead as it gets updated each year.

As for video playing worse in Flash Player than in a dedicated video software, thats because the Flash Player is way more than just a video player, it can support animated vector graphics, menu's, and other sounds on top of the video itself. Then theres the other stuff running in the Flash Player for the vast amount of other stuff it supports. It will always use more CPU because of this.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By Zingam on 9/11/2010 11:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
And I am telling you as a web user: keep Flash away from my web browser. I hate flash infested sites. Yes it is an old tech. It is not necessary to deliver appropriate web experience. The users don't need the fancy animations that flash allows, the users need fast load times and low power consumption, low CPU usage - with three words: speed and efficiency.
I thin that the standard web technologies give enough options to deliver great web experience, even if they are just 10% of what is possible with Flash. Keep it simple, please!
We all hate bloated web sites. Many users already use low power tablets, netbooks etc whose performance is killed by flash!

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By Lerianis on 9/11/2010 5:02:14 PM , Rating: 1
Only in your mind is it 'not necessary to deliver an appropriate web experience'. Personally, I like those fancy animations, so do my friends and family.

In fact, the only ones who have come out AGAINST flash are the people who are still using P2's !

Seriously, the only people who whine about Flash are people who cannot see how it is useful and/or are battery nuts!

No, netbooks and low power tablets do NOT have their performance killed by Flash, nor do they have their batteries killed by Flash.

I can use my notebook JUST AS MUCH that has an integrated graphics solution that is nearly 5 years old now using flash on certain websites or having it disabled in my browsers (yes, I have checked this).

If you are having your battery life killed by Flash? Look elsewhere, because you are taking the easy way out and not finding the underlying problem.

By Azure Sky on 9/13/2010 1:35:17 PM , Rating: 3
funny, I run a hexa core(6core) system and I dont like flash, I find that a well made page using html/css/php and even silverlight and java are better then flash.

silverlight videos play smoother even on my old athlonXP box then flash videos do.

flash sucks, get over it, flash has sucked since its inception in the 90's, How do it know? I started learning to design webpages back then, and honestly, flash is crap, even java is better, and thats sad since java has never been known for its speedyness.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By nafhan on 9/9/2010 11:35:41 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, and a motorcycle is going to be more fuel efficient than an SUV.
Adobe could certainly stand to optimize Flash, but streaming video into a general purpose web browser plugin is a much more intensive process than playing a local file in a dedicated media app. You'd really need to test vs. HTML5 or Silverlight or something to have a somewhat meaningful comparison.

By B3an on 9/11/2010 7:36:35 AM , Rating: 2
Silverlight would be the only meaningful comparison. HTML5 video should use about as much CPU as a video stored on your own computer, as it just loads the codec required to play it. With Flash and Silverlight they are advanced plugins that support a ton of things, so have many extra layers and other capabilities that require a lot of other code to be running at the same time. You can also have animations, graphics, menu's and whatever displayed on top of the video itself with these plugins.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By Flunk on 9/9/2010 11:37:22 AM , Rating: 2
Interpreted code is slow, there is no way to get around that. Plus MPC supports the hardware accleration supported by older systems and Flash 10.1 only supports hardware AVC decoding by newer video cards.

If you understand how this stuff works it's not surprising. There is indeed a good reason Apple doesn't want flash on the iPhone. It runs slowly and makes the iPhone look slow.

By jimbojimbo on 9/9/2010 3:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
It runs slowly and makes the iPhone look slow.
Funny, Froyo doesn't look slow.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By B3an on 9/11/2010 7:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
Froyo/Android 2.2 runs Flash exceptionally well. Theres some very demanding Flash stuff that can make it come to a crawl but for atleast 95% of content it's great. Theres no reason not to have Flash on a phone. Yes it can drain the battery faster, but so does playing a video or a game, yet they are still allowed. It would be so easy to just have a one touch menu button to disable the Flash plugin if you want to save battery while browsing. You already have this option on some Android browsers. Whats so hard for Apple about giving people this option to choose?

Besides, HTML5 runs vastly slower than Flash on an iPad/iPhone when it comes to anything remotely interactive or animated:

Now that will be draining the battery, 100% CPU load for sure.

RE: You know what always made me scratch my head?
By Zingam on 9/11/2010 12:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
If HTML5 is slow on iPad then ask Apple - why :D

By Lerianis on 9/11/2010 5:05:02 PM , Rating: 3
It shouldn't be slow on iPad, unless the built-in browser isn't 'written' correctly for HTML5. In fact, a browser that runs an HTML5 website should run it FASTER than a website written in old HTML when it comes down to it.

Wonder of wonders
By Dorkyman on 9/9/2010 11:06:31 AM , Rating: 5
Ain't Capitalism great? Often a painful process, but it weeds out the losing ideas and rewards the good ones. "Natural Selection" and all that.

Next thing you know Jobs will introduce an iPhone without an antenna glitch.

RE: Wonder of wonders
By nomagic on 9/9/2010 11:10:43 AM , Rating: 3
No, it is not a glitch. It is a feature! There is no reason to remove a feature that is so widely used.

RE: Wonder of wonders
By superPC on 9/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wonder of wonders
By hiscross on 9/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wonder of wonders
By eskimospy on 9/9/2010 12:39:11 PM , Rating: 3
Both MLB and the NFL are attempting to make the most financially successful entertainment product possible.

League revenue: $6.8 billion
Overall operating income: $522 million
Average MLB team value: $491 million

League revenue: $7.8 billion
Overall operating income: $1.03 billion
Average NFL team value: $1 billion

What is most remarkable about this is that the revenues of MLB and the NFL were roughly equal in 1993 (at around $1.3 billion), the year before the NFL instituted the 'Librul' Dominated, Communist, America Hating Salary Cap. In the years following 1993, NFL revenue growth has significantly outpaced that of the Conservative, Freedom Loving MLB, leading us to where we are today. Seems like 'spreading the wealth' has made the average NFL team around twice as profitable and valuable as the average MLB team. The free market has spoken, and it likes spreading the wealth.

Don't worry comrade, I like you anyway, and I have talked to Comrade Obama on your behalf. He has promised me that you will be among the last sent to the death panel.

RE: Wonder of wonders
By sprockkets on 9/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wonder of wonders
By eskimospy on 9/9/2010 1:14:46 PM , Rating: 1
Way to miss the point and then making people suffer through yet another vacuous 'BUT EVERYONE IZ BADD' post. I think it's very very safe to assume at this point that most people think American political parties suck. (it's a safe way for uninformed people to sound carefully considered instead of ignorant.)

I was making fun of him, but I guess I gave too much credit when I figured that people would 1.) realize that both MLB and the NFL are capitalistic (if cartel like) enterprises, so the comparison was insane and stupid to begin with, which was sort of my point, and 2.) that trying to draw economic conclusions by talking about how awesome the Yankees are is retarded.

I'll be sure to tag my future posts with 'I'm making fun of this guy' tags.

RE: Wonder of wonders
By sprockkets on 9/11/2010 7:42:43 PM , Rating: 1
Way to miss the point and then making people suffer through yet another vacuous 'BUT EVERYONE IZ BADD' post.

Your post sucked.
I'll be sure to tag my future posts with 'I'm making fun of this guy' tags.

If you intended it to be satire, you sucked even more.

RE: Wonder of wonders
By hiscross on 9/9/2010 1:03:31 PM , Rating: 1
I'm am not afraid of death the least bit. Better to die free than to live in slavery (as the Spartans always said). Actually, the NFL implemented the weekest team got to pick the best players in the draft in the late 70's. That helped the Giants and Jets reached the play-offs in 81. The salary crap thing is what spread the wealth, so to speak. It helped Dallas in the 90's and New England recently. MLB baseall is making money because NY and Boston have been competitive in recent years. At some point, fans will realize that MLB has out sourced too much and stop going to games. Just look at Balitimore and KC for example. MLB use of on-line technology is pretty much the standard. All SOA. Got to go, my jailer tells me its time.

RE: Wonder of wonders
By eskimospy on 9/9/2010 1:22:37 PM , Rating: 5
Sparta was also a horrific slave state all on its own, and the Spartans became quite comfortable living on their knees under first the Macedonians and then the Romans (and then, and then, and then.) So, it's pretty safe to assume they changed their mind on that one.

You probably would too.

RE: Wonder of wonders
By Reclaimer77 on 9/9/2010 3:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
Please do us a favor and never speak again.

NFL spreed the wealth and what we have now is crappy football.


RE: Wonder of wonders
By superPC on 9/9/2010 1:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
If you all so oppose to what i said, tell me this: do you really think the government (EU and US) is wrong in punishing intel and microsoft for their anticompetitive business practice? EU and US are investigating apple because of their anti flash policy and their closed system. is this also wrong?

RE: Wonder of wonders
By hiscross on 9/9/2010 4:03:04 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, the EU is a socialist state, Nuff said, As for US and the Flash thing, per crap.

You have to laugh....
By Tony Swash on 9/9/2010 2:44:55 PM , Rating: 1
Its nice to be open :)

Verizon's decision to force the use of Bing as the core search engine on the Samsung Fascinate may be part of a larger change that could undermine Android itself, a rumor hinted today. Two sources for Droid Guy, at least one of them previously accurate, claimed that Verizon is making Microsoft's Bing the mandatory engine on all of its Android phones in the future. It contradicts a previous statement from a Verizon representative that customers could change the search engine on phones if they liked.

While it's not uncommon for carriers to make deals for default search engines, Verizon's approach also prevents owners from choosing an alternative short of installing unofficial firmware, an investigation found. The Google Search widget has been removed and can't be found in Android Market for another download. More than one APK (Android app installer) for Google also fails where they work properly on Samsung Galaxy S variants for other US carriers, such as the AT&T Captivate or T-Mobile Vibrant.

??Microsoft is known to have a long-term deal with Verizon for search, but until now there hadn't been active steps to prevent using an alternative. The company may be especially vocal about changing the search on Android devices, since a stock Android phone is immediately a help to Google's search ad revenue.??

Regardless of motivations, the restriction if broadly applied would have Verizon reneging on its pledge to support the openness of Android and reflects a wider trend of the OS being artificially restricted by carriers. Most US providers are disabling Android 2.2's tethering support in favor of their own, and AT&T has banned non-Market Android apps under the pretext of security. The moves paradoxically leave Apple's iPhone more open in some areas, as its users can choose Google, Bing or Yahoo for search and don't have first-party apps deliberately hidden or broken.

??Verizon has yet to comment on the authenticity of the claims beyond what's been shown to be true with the Fascinate.

More here:

That means no seamless integration with Gmail. No Google Latitude. No multitouch in the map app, either. And in place of the free and fantastic turn-by-turn Google Navigator app, Verizon installed its VZ Navigator service — a feature which costs $10 a month to use.

It would be one thing for Verizon to set the default search and map app to Bing with the option to switch back to Google. But it’s utterly inexcusable for Verizon to destroy the possibility of a switch without the user having to root the device and, under Verizon’s company policies, void their warranty. And on top of that, repeatedly charge you for a sub-par service instead of keeping the gold standard of navigation apps for free.

And as bad as that is, there’s now a rumor that Verizon will be doing this again. On every single one of its Android devices.

RE: You have to laugh....
By amanojaku on 9/9/2010 3:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
So what's your point? Google promised to offer an open phone platform, and it did. Just like how Linux is an open source OS. And, just like (Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu, etc...) Linux, carriers are free to modify the OS however they see fit. So Verizon decides to be a douche and lock out certain features that Google made available. Just don't buy it from Verizon. Better yet, sue the bastards and see if it sticks.

RE: You have to laugh....
By Tony Swash on 9/9/2010 5:32:41 PM , Rating: 1
So what's your point?

Its just amusing to see a plan come together - or in this case not come together :)

The sole reason Google did Android was to avoid being shut out of the new mobile space. They thought the biggest threat came from Apple - the poor fools. Its the carriers.

They make a free get out of jail card for all those "couldn't innovate their way out of a paper bag" handset makers and hand the whole thing to the carriers with no strings. And then, guess what, it turns out to be not such a great way to protect themselves after all. Oh well, better luck with plan B.

RE: You have to laugh....
By theapparition on 9/9/2010 5:33:00 PM , Rating: 3
Nice attempt to cut a snippet of misinformation and passing it off as fact.

Were you holding your iPhone wrong and it didn't scroll all the way to the bottom?

UPDATE ( 1:40 PM ): According to Business Insider, Verizon will be implementing Bing search in future devices but it is NOT an exclusive deal. A Microsoft spokesperson told the news outlet (emphasis theirs):

"Over the coming months, Verizon will announce the launch of new Android devices, which will be pre-loaded with Bing. The deal for Verizon Android devices is not exclusive ."

So claim what you want, but at least with Android you have a choice of platforms. Want something small, big, thin, or with a physical keyboard,......and yes with Google or Bing. If you don't like Verizon's policy, you can go to other providers with plenty of other phones to choose from.

Can't do that with Apple now, can you?

RE: You have to laugh....
By Tony Swash on 9/9/2010 6:33:09 PM , Rating: 1
So claim what you want, but at least with Android you have a choice of platforms.

Apparently "open" is having a bit of problem delivering quality. Not a big surprise given that it turns out that the only group that Android is really "open" for is the carriers - good luck with that one :)

RE: You have to laugh....
By theapparition on 9/10/2010 11:09:21 AM , Rating: 3
There was no mention of quality in that link. Only an authors speculation about the future of carrier intervention.

Was this the best you could retort with?

But I do find it quite ironic that someone with an iPhone is going to lecture anyone else about quality. Good one.

The 80's, all over again
By ZachDontScare on 9/9/2010 2:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
Macs lost their market lead in the 80s by being proprietary and preventing 3rd parties from building machines that ran MacOS. PCs, made by countless different vendors, easily took over and made Macs basically an afterthought (until OSX started to turn that around and managed to reclaim a small portion of the market share).

Apple is repeating the same mistakes now. Android will be the market leader within a couple years because it is open, iphones will lose market share.

Time to bring back leg warmers and parachute pants.

RE: The 80's, all over again
By AnalogToDigitalKid on 9/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: The 80's, all over again
By acer905 on 9/9/2010 5:59:08 PM , Rating: 5
"Fit to be tied"
By chagrinnin on 9/9/2010 11:10:55 AM , Rating: 3
I can't help but imagine "Stevie" tied up in the background somewhere.

RE: "Fit to be tied"
By truss64130 on 9/9/2010 11:28:56 AM , Rating: 2
He did mention that his sex life was great.

Looks like Adobe's plans still blocked
By Tony Swash on 9/9/2010 6:43:43 PM , Rating: 1
Apple's new policy doesn't change anything immediately for Adobe, as the way Adobe was targeting iPhone was to use the AIR compiler to cross compile Actionscript to directly target ARM APIs through private, non-sanctioned APIs.

These changes still don't seem to allow them to do that as far as I can tell. I think the earlier blanket ban was meant to stop that sort of shit and once Apple figured out what was OK and what was not they honed down the blocking clauses to just stop the bad shit.

Does anyone really want Apps compiled with Air using non-sactioned APIs? seems like a recipe for cross platform crapware to me

And of course they don't allow Flash to run in iOS (thank god).

By Lerianis on 9/11/2010 5:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but it's only APPLE who is saying that stuff is 'bad'. I trust Apple about as much as I trust..... SATAN!

The fact is that Apple should have allowed these things and allowed them to 'target ARM API through private API's'. As long as they were HONEST about what the thing was doing? Adobe should have been allowed to do what they were doing.

you forgot
By sprockkets on 9/9/2010 12:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
That the FTC was going to investigate Apple for this as well. Perhaps they knew they would lost.

Marketshare slide or not, you have to admit, they are doing very well for one model of phone on one carrier.

What does this mean?
By Tony Swash on 9/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: What does this mean?
By themaster08 on 9/10/2010 2:22:07 AM , Rating: 1
I tend to see it as a sign of confidence in their app platform.
Then why did they do it in the first place? Were they not confident enough before?

I'm sure you're the only one here that somehow sees this as a sign of confidence.

RE: What does this mean?
By Tony Swash on 9/10/2010 6:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
Then why did they do it in the first place? Were they not confident enough before?

I'm sure you're the only one here that somehow sees this as a sign of confidence.

The thing is if, this was a sign of weakness then presumeably it would be a weakness on the App front. This after all is a measure likely to increase or broaden the number of apps on the iPhone from different sources. If Apple really did feel pressured into doing this then it would logically have to be because they felt pressure in relations to the comparative app situation of iOS in relation to other platforms such as Android.

The problem is that there is not the slightest evidence that Apple is feeling competitive pressure on the App front. Apple's App Store still has lots more Apps than its nearest competitors, developers are still making a lot (really a lot) more money on the App Store than on any other platform, the Apple App development framework continues to be undated, improved and highly appreciated by developers.

So where is the pressure on Apple on the App front?

My feeling is that this is a tidying up of the rules once Apple had a look at the various issues it was concerned about and decided it was not particularly threatened by some of stuff it had previously blocked. Its still not supporting Flash itself and the new rules still block development frameworks like Adobe's AIR.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki