backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by darkblade33.. on Apr 20 at 1:04 PM


This just in -- Steve Jobs HATES Flash. He expressed his dislike of the platform in a reply to an frustrated Apple developer.  (Source: Business Insider)
Jobs is drinking more Flash hatorade

The Tao Effect, an Apple-focused software company maintains a blog where they banter about programming and chime in about issues effecting Apple developers.  On Friday the site's Greg Slepak wrote a post blasting Apple's new policy (in the iPhone SDK 3.3.1 terms) that iPhone apps can only be developed in C, C++, or Objective-C, essentially disallowing direct (linker-based) ports of Flash apps to the iPhone.

Along with the post, Greg took the unusual move of emailing Apple CEO Steve Jobs  Jobs occasionally responds personally to Apple customers or the media, but it seemed unlikely that anything would come of it.  

Surprisingly, Jobs quickly replied, pointing Slepnak to a post by the
Daring Fireball's John Gruber, which offered to justification for the move.  Writes Jobs:

We think John Gruber’s post is very insightful and not negative:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_apple_changed_section_331" rel="nofollow

Steve

Slepnak was shocked to receive a response, but quickly replied:

Sorry. I didn’t catch that post, but I finished it just now.

I still think it undermines Apple. You didn’t need this clause to get to where you are now with the iPhone’s market share, adding it just makes people lose respect for you and run for the hills, as a commenter to that article stated:

"So what Apple does not want is for some other company to establish a de facto standard software platform on top of Cocoa Touch. Not Adobe’s Flash. Not .NET (through MonoTouch). If that were to happen, there’s no lock-in advantage.”

And that makes Apple evil. At least, it does in the sense that Google uses the term in “don’t be evil” – I believe pg translated “evil” as something along the lines of “trying to compete by means other than making the best product and marketing it honestly."

From a developer’s point of view, you’re limiting creativity itself. Gruber is wrong, there are plenty of [applications] written using cross-platform frameworks that are amazing, that he himself has praised. Mozilla’s Firefox just being one of them.

I don’t think Apple has much to gain with 3.3.1, quite the opposite actually.

Amazingly, Jobs responded yet a second time (within 3 minutes), stating:

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.

So there you have it -- an official response from Apple's CEO himself on why Apple is disallowing Flash and other third-party intermediaries.  Ultimately, the response is pretty predictable, given Jobs' past rants about Flash being "buggy" and crashing Mac computers and vowing it would never touch the iPhone (or iPad). 

Furthermore, Slepnak was referring to Adobe's software that would directly port Flash Apps to a binary using iPhone API calls (with no Flash involved in the final product).  That makes it almost seem like Jobs is claiming the Flash development tools themselves (not just the implementation) somehow inherently yield inferiors apps. 

An Adobe employee has already responded to Apple, in an unofficial statement, telling Apple to "Go screw” itself.



Comments     Threshold


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

we've been there before?
By omnicronx on 4/12/2010 11:40:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
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.
Funny, you've never given any tangeable evidence to show the contrary.. Just because you say it does not make it so..

This is pretty simple, Jobs does not want people leveraging these tools or developers will be able to essentially cross platform their apps. One can make a base .net program, and only have to make the front end for each platform. A move like this all but stops developers from doing this.




RE: we've been there before?
By TSS on 4/12/2010 11:51:07 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Just because you say it does not make it so..


HERESY!

*pokes with soft cussions*

CONFESS! CONFESS!


RE: we've been there before?
By MrBlastman on 4/12/2010 4:58:37 PM , Rating: 1
Even Captain Picard can offer justifications for getting rid of Steve Jobs:

"Phasers on full, target and destroy Steve Jobs. Make it so!"

See. It is that easy. Why hasn't someone done it yet?

Apple not allowing flash is simply their method of controlling their products to prevent 3rd party software from being installed or run on them--or, better yet, flash apps that are free that do the job.


RE: we've been there before?
By jhb116 on 4/12/2010 7:52:32 PM , Rating: 3
And yet no talk of anti-trust. No this is one that the EU could definitely provide justification for and would likely help consumers in the long run.

On the other hand - I'm not a big flash fan either - adobe products seem to be very buggy for many years. It seems they both need a swift kick in the rear.


RE: we've been there before?
By mcnabney on 4/13/2010 10:29:37 AM , Rating: 2
Is anyone else besides me surprised that Adobe hasn't cut Apple off?

CS5 doesn't have to be released for the Mac...


RE: we've been there before?
By flatrock on 4/13/2010 5:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
I hardly think Apple has a monopoly in the smart phone market. Anti-trust forbids abusing monopoly power. Locking down a platform and not playing nice with developers or competitors isn't illegal in the absense of monopoly power. It's actually a depressingly common business practice.

In the absense of a monopoly it is up to the consumers to choose a product over competing products, and thanks to solid engineering and great marketing people keep choosing Apple's products despite their extremely restrictive business model.

As long as consumers have choices, it's not the government's place to prevent them from making foolish ones.


RE: we've been there before?
By Lerianis on 4/13/2010 8:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, in most places that are sane (that excludes America, however) using your power in business to keep another competitor out the business is illegal even if you don't have a monopoly.


RE: we've been there before?
By afkrotch on 4/14/2010 12:49:14 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly anywhere. You can easily use Linux, Unix, etc. Yet they sure seem to get sued a lot. Explain.


RE: we've been there before?
By darkblade33 on 4/20/2010 12:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple not allowing flash is simply their method of controlling their products to prevent 3rd party software from being installed or run on them --or, better yet, flash apps that are free that do the job.


Wow, considering the majority of iPhones 175,000 apps are third-party thats about the most ignorant, uninformed, fanboy, Apple hate comment on this thread so far.

Alot of companies are slowly trying to reduce flash use, IMHO. Google has removed flash from youtube moble so anyone can use it.. Somehow Droid flash keeps getting held up.. and most mobile websites have completely retooled code that uses zero flash, which also make web pages load faster.


RE: we've been there before?
By Anoxanmore on 4/12/2010 5:02:03 PM , Rating: 1
Bring me some oil, salt, and rope, we shall make him confess.

If anyone gets that reference, I shall give you a cookie


RE: we've been there before?
By FITCamaro on 4/12/2010 8:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm part of the Dark Side and we already have cookies.


RE: we've been there before?
By Anoxanmore on 4/13/2010 12:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
YOU LIE! :P


RE: we've been there before?
By Pirks on 4/12/2010 12:32:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Funny, you've never given any tangeable evidence to show the contrary. Just because you say it does not make it so
Wrong point omni, the correct one is this: Jobs said that he wants no layers in between hardware and the code, BUT his own ObjC runtime and his iPhone OS IS THIS LAYER ALREADY. Now if you look at MonoTouch this is just a replacement of ObjC runtime and language with .Net runtime and language. Please note that MonoTouch is technically NOT AN ADDITIONAL LAYER on top of what Apple engineers write. It's just ANOTHER LAYER that _REPLACES_ Apple's layer.

Therefore Jobs is lying here. Technically he's wrong and looks like everyone knows this, maybe even himself.

Or else... there's still a possibility that he wanted to say something else but since he's more a business guy and less technical maybe he's missed something... I think this is unlikely, more like he's just covering his tracks again.


RE: we've been there before?
By rocky12345 on 4/12/2010 1:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Wow those are some good points I never thought I would agree with you Mr pirks but this time I do. Holy wow lol.


RE: we've been there before?
By Sazabi19 on 4/12/2010 3:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
Holy shit Pirks account must have been hijacked... he essentially denied his messiah *jaw agape*


RE: we've been there before?
By DominionSeraph on 4/12/2010 4:02:26 PM , Rating: 4
Holy cow, what's next: reader1 with a 5?


RE: we've been there before?
By mcnabney on 4/13/2010 10:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
No. Not even that. Well, maybe if Reader1 posted a suicide note...

jk


RE: we've been there before?
By omnicronx on 4/12/2010 4:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jobs said that he wants no layers in between hardware and the code,
Well, he never actually said that. (as you explained, most likely because that particular statement was dubbed down)

Jobs:
"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"

If you actually read the posts, he endorses this article here for its explination: http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_apple_change...

Its specifically mentions a layer ontop of Cocoa Touch and also considering Jobs praised the blog, it kind of confirms that Apple is wanting to control the mobile apps environment by making the Cocoa Touch APIs the defacto standard.

Good ideas though and nice post ;)


RE: we've been there before?
By Pirks on 4/12/2010 5:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ya I misunderstood Jobs and his post, he indeed does not want anything on top of his API, and MonoTouch and similar frameworks are on top so no place for them now. This is going to reduce iPhone app code bloat but it's not going to make iPhone apps really hard to port to other platforms, in the long run. All it takes is to develop a crossplatform framework in ObjC or C++ that emulates iPhone API on other platforms. Voila, cross platform development and the code that's 100% legal from the point of view of new Apple SDK EULA. Both birds killed with one stone.

Now, who's going to develop such an SDK? This is a huge task, not sure anyone has enough capital, the only candidate is Google but they won't bother since they have Android.

Looks like a nice theoretical idea about how to circumvent the new Apple's restrictions but not practically achievable due to huge $$$/manpower requirements


RE: we've been there before?
By superPC on 4/12/2010 8:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
RE: we've been there before?
By NanoTube1 on 4/14/2010 3:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
Pirks rating = 5? O_o

The rapture is near!!


RE: we've been there before?
By mostyle on 4/19/2010 7:37:21 AM , Rating: 2
Now I'm waiting for a Microsoft released Linux distro that has a fully working transparent API layer..

If Pirks can get a 5... It could happen.

-T


RE: we've been there before?
By SublimeSimplicity on 4/12/2010 12:50:52 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Jobs: 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.


Anyone who has used iTunes on a windows PC knows this is true, he speaks from experience.


RE: we've been there before?
By omnicronx on 4/12/2010 4:34:22 PM , Rating: 5
I disagree, iTunes is crap regardless of platform ;)


RE: we've been there before?
By cmdrdredd on 4/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: we've been there before?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/12/2010 4:48:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
works fine.


Lie.

quote:
It's 1000x better than the Zune App


Lmao lie. Especially if you like Podcasts. It doesn't get much better than the Zune for podcast fans. It doesn't have retarded fucking defaults like iTunes. And it doesn't run like frozen poop like iTunes.


RE: we've been there before?
By kmmatney on 4/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: we've been there before?
By afkrotch on 4/14/2010 12:56:34 AM , Rating: 1
I just organize my music myself. The benefit of not needing a program to put music onto my mp3 player.


RE: we've been there before?
By InternetGeek on 4/12/2010 4:19:50 PM , Rating: 3
Jobs has always been a 'hardware' guy. He wants nothing between the app and the platform, and this move is to prevent anything from interfering with the platform.

He's still an idiot though. And hopefully the people around him will realize they should stand up to him or he will once more run the company into the ground.


RE: we've been there before?
By xmichaelx on 4/12/2010 5:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He wants nothing between the app and the platform

The truth. That's why all Apple programs must be written in binary.


RE: we've been there before?
By geekforhire on 4/12/2010 10:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
Gentlemen,

After reading the Gruber post, I found that he makes some really good points. The responding posters are entitled to disagree with his points, but they unfortunately misrepresent the points that are made with plain language, and laugh at him as being a pinhead who makes stupid points as if their prose were some self evident truth that all the cool kids naturally get.

The problem with the "everything should be free" model is that it is difficult to be sustained beyond the fad phase.

You may not like the idea of content being placed behind a "paywall", but the fact remains that there is a cost in producing intelligent and interesting content that doesn't sound like an echo chamber. And the enterprise that presented that content needs to make a profit in order to survive, and thereby be more likely to again produce intelligent and interesting content.

Remember that Google is more than sustained by advertising revenue, by positioning itself as the simultaneous presenter of the advertisement, the collector of advertising fees, and payor of advertisement income at a lower rate.

Free Market forces can sometimes have interesting and unpredictable results.


hes both wrong and right
By tastyratz on 4/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: hes both wrong and right
By Reclaimer77 on 4/12/2010 12:16:07 PM , Rating: 5
HTML5 is NOT a full feature set development...

Sigh, screw it. It's been pointed out so many time here I can't being myself to do it again. Go on believing it can directly compete with Flash and do it better somehow.


RE: hes both wrong and right
By corduroygt on 4/12/2010 12:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
True, but like 90% of Flash is used for video and ads. I could put up with flash in applications, but video and ads should be flash free imho.


RE: hes both wrong and right
By Reclaimer77 on 4/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: hes both wrong and right
By corduroygt on 4/12/2010 1:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
I used flash for years but it was far from "fine", on Windows, OSX, and Linux. The situation is getting worse now especially since HD videos are beginning to take off.

I have no problem with flash apps, but watching a video should not hog my cpu 100%. Youtube is fine but some other sites have horribly unoptimized video players.


RE: hes both wrong and right
By Reclaimer77 on 4/12/2010 3:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The situation is getting worse now especially since HD videos are beginning to take off.


That's ALREADY been fixed. It's called Flash 10. Maybe you should know wtf you're talking about before making comments.

quote:
I have no problem with flash apps, but watching a video should not hog my cpu 100%.


I agree. But that's been fixed now.

quote:
Youtube is fine but some other sites have horribly unoptimized video players.


Another good point, but this isn't Flash's fault. Plus a lot of people live in massive urban area's where the local loops is saturated and blame Flash for poor performance.


RE: hes both wrong and right
By mindless1 on 4/12/2010 5:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
I always said Flash sucked, and after installing Flash 10.1, suddenly some Flash games don't work right anymore.

Flash has always been ridiculously CPU intensive, doing something a 200MHz Pentium 1 can do should not consume over 20% of a 3+GHz system, and peak over 40%, and I do mean version 10 as well as 9 and before.

Flash is almost always misused by silly monkeys that think things need to move around when they don't, but are too lazy to code that instead of taking the short road that screws everybody. Hint to those people: If you can't do it right, get a different job.


RE: hes both wrong and right
By Targon on 4/12/2010 7:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
So, a beta version of Flash 10.1 has some problems, did you expect there to be no bugs in a beta? Then you have "some flash games"...did you write them and as a result know that there are zero bugs that might cause problems on the new version?

You also would need to show that you can even run that flash application on the 200MHz Pentium 1 before you complain about how much CPU it draws on a 3GHz system. Saying that some animation that was done as a native executable and then POORLY ported to Flash will also not work as well as if you do a good job in Flash. Why not say that emulators suck because in the process of doing the emulation, things slow down?


RE: hes both wrong and right
By mindless1 on 4/13/2010 4:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the release version 10.0 ALSO has this bug! So, they didn't even bother to fix the flaw before piling on more junk.

I don't need to know the game has zero bugs, I only need to know that once again a newer version of Flash is causing problems. I don't care to point fingers, I only care about the result which is once again I'm worse off than if Flash never existed.

I don't "need to know" I could run that Flash app on a Pentium I 200MHz, the point is the app would run as a standalone application on a Pentium I but once you add the Flash layer to do the same end result, THAT is what is an incredibly HUGE bloat and requires many times as much CPU horsepower.

Yes, many emulators do suck, but most people are not continually running an emulation which is what we are faced with constantly running Flash!

Put simply there is a good way and a bad way to do most things and Flash is used in a very poor way most of the time, meaning Flash shouldn't have been used at all.


RE: hes both wrong and right
By afkrotch on 4/14/2010 1:04:59 AM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one thinking,"this is a the worst arguement I've ever read?"


RE: hes both wrong and right
By darkblade33 on 4/20/2010 1:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
Im in the middle.. I think flash is still needed for some things, but needs to be phased out of other things as newer technologies come along.

Everyone still uses a car, but how many want to go back to old window cranks, when power windows are easier?

There are winners and losers.. Adobe flash has been used for many yrs, but how many companies ( not just Apple ) really want Adobe to have some control of their products..


RE: hes both wrong and right
By XZerg on 4/12/2010 1:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
you know the quick way to make these illiterates realize of Apple's trickery is Google to remove Youtube support... Although it would hurt Google's revenue and what not but sure as hell that would put a fire on Apple's retardedness...


RE: hes both wrong and right
By Pirks on 4/12/2010 1:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
An alternative point of view: when Adobe FINALLY delivers x64 Windows version of Flash plugin in 2020 or so, everyone will be using HTML5 by then and noone will need Flash ;)


RE: hes both wrong and right
By XZerg on 4/12/2010 1:23:03 PM , Rating: 1
hell no! FlashBlock would be useless and I would have a bitch of time to deal with removal of ads then :p


RE: hes both wrong and right
By tastyratz on 4/12/2010 10:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
I never said it was a direct replacement, I said it will address those problems. It wont allow the same kind of functionality but it will lessen the reliance on flash by allowing some of the webs more simplistic uses to have an alternative. Again why its a necessary evil and remains one sadly.

I still feel the same way about flash and adobe as well.

Quick to vote down and mis interpret. Sigh.


RE: hes both wrong and right
By Thorburn on 4/12/2010 12:20:43 PM , Rating: 5
That could possibly be an argument for reasons not to implement Flash on the device, but that isn't what is being blocked here.

Instead they are blocking the creation of native iPhone binaries using tools other than their own.
It would be a bit like Microsoft locking down Windows so that you could only write and publish applications for it if you made them in Visual Studio.

Sucks for anyone who just renewed their developer subscription and was planning on using the now banned tools.


This is about stopping apps for other platforms
By Abrahmm on 4/12/2010 2:30:40 PM , Rating: 4
This has nothing to do with quality issues of cross platform apps. Jobs is attempting to slow down app development for other platforms like Android and Windows mobile by not allowing cross platform tools to be used. He is trying to stop developers from making one app and with certain 3rd party tools being able to publish it on the iPhone, Android, Blackberry, etc..

He's basically saying "Make apps for our platform, not theirs" and I'm guessing he is hoping to slow down app development on other platforms.

I hope there is a large developer backlash.




RE: This is about stopping apps for other platforms
By kobymu on 4/13/2010 2:12:23 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.

Of all possible explanation (that may or may not be mutually exclusive), I think the vendor lock-in argument is probably the most likely reason (and/or the heaviest in weight).

quote:
I hope there is a large developer backlash.


There is already _first order_ backlash from this, i.e. vocal dissension. In the long run, it is the second order dissension that is going to hurt Apple.

It is very difficult to sustain vendor lock-in. It usually requires en ecosystems in which there is justification for significant initial, and/or accumulated over years investment.

And iPhone and iPad are not mainframes! Quiet the opposite. they are in the "shake it or lose it" type of market.

At a certain point in time, the market(s) in which the iPhone and the iPad plays in, will stabilize, and from that point on, unless Apple will command a very substantial market share, developers will simply shift their attainment to the other platforms where they will be able to consolidate efforts.

This decision will hurt Apple in the long run, one way or another.

koby


By kobymu on 4/13/2010 2:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
^ lots of spelling mistakes there.


Woah!
By DEVGRU on 4/12/2010 11:36:59 AM , Rating: 2
I thought Jobs just ordained and the clueless sheeple followed? Since when has God had to justify his infinite wisdom? Shock. Awe.




RE: Woah!
By Shig on 4/12/2010 11:51:45 AM , Rating: 2
"Hatorade"

lol


RE: Woah!
By PAPutzback on 4/12/2010 11:54:31 AM , Rating: 1
Steve Jobs is an iTard for sure. I'll give him credit though, he keeps trying and has defintely made a comeback since he came out with the iPod. I wonder who are the brains behind the products though? Probably Milton.


By nichow on 4/12/2010 12:57:06 PM , Rating: 4
As someone who writes a good deal of code, I would argue that intermediate libraries usually increase the quality of the finished product, while decreasing development time.

Most coders don't understand the OS API fully for a variety of reasons and a good intermediate library that abstracts some of the complicated bits is very handy. A good library provides the common boiler plate code without the common bugs people generally add when they do it themselves.

Granted a bad library will contain more bugs that it prevents propagating itself to create bad apps.

All that said I question the real motive behind this policy. You can easily write an intermediate library in C, C++ or Objective C, but these are not banned.




single app store
By DrApop on 4/12/2010 1:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
How does apple...and google for that matter, get away with being the only controlling source for available software? How do they get around being the only controlling monarch to determine what can and can't be run on the device?




RE: single app store
By Lerianis on 4/13/2010 8:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
Good question. If Microsoft had a phone and was doing something like this, the regulators would be SCREAMING for Microsoft's head.


Steve Jobs the anti American
By knowom on 4/12/2010 5:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
Steve Jobs certainly doesn't portray himself as very patriotic and Americian by running his software like a Chinese dictatorship and limiting freedom of choice maybe he should just move to China he certainly loves their child labor making him filthy rich.




RE: Steve Jobs the anti American
By gplracer on 4/12/2010 10:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
an official response from Apple's CEO himself on why Apple is disallowing Flash and other third-party intermediaries. Ultimately, the response is pretty predictable, given Jobs' past rants about Flash being "buggy" and crashing Mac computers


HaHa! The WORST app ever is Bonjour. It is made by Apple and it screwed up the networking on my Windows 7 when it installed without my permission but as a piggy back program. I had to remove it to get the internet back.


By NesuD on 4/12/2010 12:59:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Slepnak was referring to Adobe's software that would directly port Flash Apps to a binary using iPhone API calls (with no Flash involved in the final product).




Flash
By jeffbui on 4/12/2010 12:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
Flash is horrible in OS X for some strange reason. I could see why Jobs hates it.




Current Apps
By Kary on 4/12/2010 4:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
How many current apps are going to be removed from the Apple store because of this?




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki