backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by DigitalFreak.. on Apr 22 at 9:11 PM

Apple's new developer license terms simply leave no other option, says Adobe

Its been a bitter couple weeks between Apple and Adobe.  While the pair's relationship has long been icy due to Apple's lack of desire to support Flash on the iPhone, in recent weeks Apple vocally attacked Adobe and more.  

Apple's latest SDK version -- 3.3.1 -- add terms prohibiting developers from porting Flash apps to iPhone binaries.  Reads the terms:

3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

That prohibition appears to ban the ports made with Adobe's CS5 iPhone linking tool.  That tool replaces Flash calls with iPhone OS X calls that yields a binary that looks almost identical to a C-language app, but was originally written in Flash.

Yesterday Adobe's Mike Chambers, Principal Product Manager for developer relations for the Flash Platform at Adobeannounced that the company would be officially dropping support for iPhone ports after CS5.  

Chambers makes it clear he has little respect for Apple's moves mentioning many examples of Apple's App Store restrictions and censorship.  He writes, "However, as developers for the iPhone have learned, if you want to develop for the iPhone you have to be prepared for Apple to reject or restrict your development at anytime, and for seemingly any reason."

Chambers expresses his frustrations as he comments about the reasoning behind Apple's move.  He writes, "The primary goal of Flash has always been to enable cross browser, platform and device development. The cool web game that you build can easily be targeted and deployed to multiple platforms and devices. However, this is the exact opposite of what Apple wants. They want to tie developers down to their platform, and restrict their options to make it difficult for developers to target other platforms."

He warns developers to prepare to have their apps developed in Flash to be kicked out of the iTunes store.  Many developers mention on their sites or promotional materials that they use the Flash porting tool.  That indiscretion could make Chambers prediction come true in many cases.  After all, it's hard to recognize a port via the binary, but if the developers itself has talked about porting it, it's an easy catch.

Chambers concludes, "Personally, I am going to shift all of my mobile focus from iPhone to Android based devices (I am particularly interested in the Android based tablets coming out this year) and not focus on the iPhone stuff as much anymore. This includes both Flash based, and Objective-C based iPhone development. While I actually enjoy working in Objective-C, I don’t have any current plans to update and / or maintain my existing native iPhone applications (including the AS3 Reference Guide, and Timetrocity). As I wrote previously, I think that the closed system that Apple is trying to create is bad for the industry, developers and ultimately consumers, and that is not something that I want to actively promote."

Steve Jobs has defended his stance on Adobe several times.  He say it's "buggy" and virus-prone and crashes Macs.  He's dodged the question of ports, but has alleged that the Flash platform in general leads to deficient code.

Updated 4/21/2010 @ 2:48 pm

According to CNET, Apple has responded back to Mike Chambers' comments regarding Apple and Flash. "Someone has it backwards--it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary," responded Apple spokeswoman Trudy Miller.



Comments     Threshold


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

Drop support for OSX now also.
By CU on 4/21/2010 10:07:13 AM , Rating: 5
If they really wanted to hurt Apple they would drop support support for OSX also. Although that would hurt them also, but it would show Apple they mean business. Besides how much longer before Apple does the same thing to OSX. They are saying yeah your binary file looks like this binary file compiled from C they way we say it should be, but you used a different language and a cross compiler, so we don't like it. Really its ones and zero's why should they care what it started out as or how it got there.




RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By Lonyo on 4/21/2010 10:27:35 AM , Rating: 4
I would love to see it.
Unfortunately Adobe isn't a private company, so their shareholders would throw an absolute fit.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By B3an on 4/22/2010 1:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
It would be great though if it happened wouldn't it. Of course it wont... but where would Macs be without Adobe?
If Adobe did not support Macs over the years theres a good chance Apple would not even be around today.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By Murloc on 4/21/2010 11:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
that would be interesting.

There still is people saying that macs are better for graphic stuff.

If there's no more photoshop and flash on macs they are basically dead.

They won't do it anyway, too much of a loss of marketshare.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By Motoman on 4/21/2010 11:34:18 AM , Rating: 4
...the very concept that Macs are "better" than PCs for any purpose at all is moronic.

Like everything else, it's pure PR BS. Stupid people are incapable of differentiation between propaganda and fact. And then they buy Macs.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By zaki on 4/21/2010 3:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
but everyone has an iPOD!!!
they're so COOL!!

like oMG!

haha, yeah apple can suck it.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By cfaalm on 4/21/2010 3:59:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
like oMG!


When it's about Apple it's OMS! i.e. Oh My Steve!

There, fixed it for you.


By ClownPuncher on 4/22/2010 7:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh My Steve (tm) in that picture looks like he is trying to tuck his junk and do the Buffalo Bill dance.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By amanojaku on 4/21/10, Rating: 0
By MrDiSante on 4/21/2010 12:27:58 PM , Rating: 4
To the best of my knowledge, Apple isn't actually capable of writing more than interface wrappers around other people's code, or at least hasn't demonstrated that ability in the past 20 years. Writing a Photoshop clone requires a lot more than that.

As well, I think you're severely underestimating the pain in the ass it is to move from one system to another when all of your staff have been trained for it, as well as all of your projects and tools. Photoshop is Photoshop whether it's on a Mac or a Windows machine. They'll wine for a bit and get used to it. GIMP or whatever else you decide to use requires significantly more training/overhead to move to.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By CU on 4/21/2010 1:24:02 PM , Rating: 3
Apple couldn't re-make all of Adobe's software over night. It would take years. Not to mention how to handle all the 3rd party plugins and tools that work with Adobe's software. Will they rewrite those also? I think it would hurt Apple more than Adobe? Mac has competition ie. Windows, while Adobe doesn't have much competition. So, the designers will have to follow Adobe.

As for Mac fanatics not using windows no matter, what do they do when the go to work or school that doesn't use OSX? Or do they base thier school and job choice off of what OS they use there?


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By nikon133 on 4/21/2010 5:43:20 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with you. People who's work depend on Photoshop, Illustrator... would have no choice but to get them on Windows. A lot of them would probably bootcamp (or virtualize) Windows on their Macs, but at the end of the day, for most (if not every) copy of CS not sold on Mac, Adobe would sell a copy more for Windows.

I'm really hoping someone will give Apple good spanking one of these days. I know Apple is one of the wealthiest IT companies over there, but they are still only one company, and supporting one minor desktop platform (OK, and one mainstream mobile platform); for what they are, amount of bullying coming from them is really annoying.

I would really like to see some sort of coalition formed in order to teach Apple some manners. Say, Adobe and MS. They are not natural enemies - Adobe is not doing OS, Office suites nor server products, while MS is not doing design suites. Number of potential stumbling points between them is relatively low.


By PitViper007 on 4/21/2010 2:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mac fanatics WILL NOT USE WINDOWS, no matter what.


They will if the company they work for tells them they will, or they will find another job. The company I work for made the shift from Macs to PC about 4 years ago. There was a lot of grumbling and griping but those Mac users, many of whom had NEVER used a PC before, made the switch. Now we do still have a few Macs in house, but they are primarily for jobs coming from outside customers.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By T2k on 4/21/2010 5:47:13 PM , Rating: 5
We're a viz/anim/web house and there's only one Mac here with Photoshop, the CEO's pet machine which he only uses to review stuff.
The other Mac is an old dual G5, strictly there for the web team to test compatibility.

Everybody including illustrators (running Photoshop all day long), animators, compositors etc they all work on Windows - as a matter of fact the software choices on OS X are simply laughable, most simply does not even exist.
The networking and directory services etc are all a joke compared to what's available in a modern Windows-based (Win2k8 R2) domain.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By carniver on 4/21/2010 2:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, the goal is not to be childish and take revenge. If Adobe can take Apple to court and force them to withdraw such anticompetitive behaviour, and FORCE Jobs to live with Flash on his beloved iPhone, this will be like a sin to him that tainted his "perfection" so he'll die of a heart attack and Adobe will make the most money.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By CU on 4/21/2010 4:22:31 PM , Rating: 3
Not for revenge, but to make a point. I don't think what Apple is doing is illegal. It is just not very nice, and very controlling. This is also not about running on flash on the iPhone or iPad. It is about developers choosing the best language and compiler for the job. Apple doesn't know what the developers want to do, so how can Apple know what the best language and compiler to use is? They can't. They just want more control.

Also what if Apple does do this to OSX, I see no reason they wouldn't. If it works for the iPhone and iPad then why not thier computers? Why waste time developing for OSX only to have them say sorry you used the wrong language next year or the year after. They have made it clear they don't care about developers. So developers shouldn't care about them.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By bupkus on 4/21/2010 2:39:28 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, I'd get a chuckle if Adobe applied a "Jobs" tax on their software. If Apple users are willing to pay more for the privilege to use OSX I think they should be willing to pay more to use Photo Shop on OSX.


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By samspqr on 4/22/2010 6:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
actually, that's a GREAT idea

I say 20%

and the time is right now: I think CS5 is the biggest improvement in the series


RE: Drop support for OSX now also.
By Tony Swash on 4/21/10, Rating: -1
By karlostomy on 4/21/2010 9:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
@ ^^^

Cripes dude, that sounds like a direct copy of one of those sarcastic and arrogantly smarmy Mac advertisements.

Kudos for trying to be funny, but maybe you could try getting some new ideas, or at least a new angle for selling your Mac fervour. It's just that we've seen and heard it all before.

Wait.
You're Steve Jobs aren't you?


Gimme a freekin break
By xler8r on 4/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: Gimme a freekin break
By MPE on 4/21/2010 10:10:06 AM , Rating: 5
Welcome to Fantasyland. Enjoy your stay.


RE: Gimme a freekin break
By jRaskell on 4/21/2010 10:14:48 AM , Rating: 5
That support NEEDS to be two way. Adobe has jumped through hoop after hoop trying to provide iPhone combatible versions of their products, and Steve Jobs has done everything in his power to block them at every turn.

Pretty much everything Chambers has said about Apple is completely true. Apple does NOT want cross platform development. In Apples ideal world, apps developed for their products are ONLY developed for their products and no others. They don't want consumers to have a choice. Never have wanted them to have a choice. They are the epitome of an anti-competitive company and their tactics make virtually everything Microsoft has ever done look downright benign in comparison. The fact that they have even an appreciable market share in any market, nevermind dominant market share in any of them is absolutely astounding to me.


RE: Gimme a freekin break
By xler8r on 4/21/2010 10:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
You know... all this talk about Apple's divine knowledge of whats best for their customers makes me think of how South Park always has to "Censor" the image of Mohammad... Should we start doing this for Steve Jobs? He is magical after all!


RE: Gimme a freekin break
By MrBlastman on 4/21/2010 10:52:42 AM , Rating: 5
Make fun of Jobs and they'll try and kill you. They'll take a bite--right out of your head.

Diddn't you realize that is what the divine symbol of Apple is?

Oh, and I commend Matt Stone and Trey Parker for taking on Islam and the hypocrisy that it is.


RE: Gimme a freekin break
By aegisofrime on 4/21/2010 12:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
200 was freaking awesomeness condensed into 20 minutes.

I have always felt that Trey Parker and Matt Stone will make good Presidents. That is, if the politics don't corrupt them first.


RE: Gimme a freekin break
By Sazar on 4/21/2010 4:17:56 PM , Rating: 3
Well, picking between a Turd Sandwich and a Douche Bag is the only choice right now, so having the 2 of them as presidents would be a step-up regardless.

Or, just have an animated character for President.

Cartman and his big stick of authoritay anyone?


RE: Gimme a freekin break
By Ard on 4/21/2010 12:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
Someone give this man a 6. He's absolutely correct.


RE: Gimme a freekin break
By bhieb on 4/21/2010 11:01:35 AM , Rating: 1
If ever I was FOR government intervention on anti-competitive suits, this is a sure fire one IMHO. If this is not Apple abusing it's dominant position in the market, then I don't know what is. God I hope it backfires.


RE: Gimme a freekin break
By bhieb on 4/21/2010 11:08:27 AM , Rating: 1
Just to clarify a bit. I don't care if Apple wanted to ban Flash ports from day one. But clearly they wanted a rich app store at launch until their product was the defacto standard, then change the rules and basically shite on all the developers that made your product great.

Let's face it, as a phone the iPhone is bleh at best, it is all about the apps. This is a slap in the face of all the folks that made the iPhone great.


RE: Gimme a freekin break
By Motoman on 4/21/2010 11:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
...why would they do that? The mindless Apple drones will buy ANYTHING that Apple makes. Regardless of what obvious features are missing, regardless of how wildly overpriced it is, regardless of how unreliable it is, so on and so forth.

With their zombie customer base, consisting of people utterly incapable of thinking for themselves, what incentive does Apple have to take customer wishes into account?

They're going to sell everything they make anyway. No point in worrying about whether or not you're making a piece of crap if it's a guaranteed sell-out anyway.


Surprising? Nope.
By msheredy on 4/21/2010 11:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
Adobe would be stupid to continue support for porting apps through Flash. It's a no brainer, so why did this make the news?

I can't help to find it sort of amusing all these DT members who continually rant about the same stuff, Apple this and Apple that. You guys are the ones feeding the fire but are too caught up in it to realize that. Dood get over it and move on. Life's too short to be pissed off at a company that makes electronic devices. Geez




RE: Surprising? Nope.
By thefrozentin on 4/21/2010 1:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
Dont call me dood buddy! But seriously, i agree with you. Its all 1s and 0s in the end..who gives a frick!!


RE: Surprising? Nope.
By Akrovah on 4/22/2010 5:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is more a great deal of frustration with the mental capacity of our fellow man exemplified by the fact that Apple pulls this kind of crap, but so many people hold them up as a golden boy, completely buying into all thier BS all the time.


To be expected
By Jaybus on 4/21/2010 10:57:54 AM , Rating: 5
This is what happens with closed systems like anything Apple produces. Since they control the app store, they can manipulate any developer they choose. They are leveraging that control and sending the message to developers that you either develop exclusively for us or else not at all. Even Microsoft doesn't do that.

I find it odd that the justice departments of various nations take Microsoft to task for integrating Internet Explorer into Windows, even though it didn't prevent one from installing and using another browser, yet have no problem with Apple's blatant market manipulation.

I say go Droid!




Open?
By jimhsu on 4/21/2010 3:38:21 PM , Rating: 5
"Someone has it backwards--it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary," responded Apple spokeswoman Trudy Miller.

Then please explain why "open" platforms such as Java or Python are not supported. Hm... is it because they could be used to develop cross platform apps? Hypocrisy.




Amazing
By wiz220 on 4/21/2010 10:59:06 AM , Rating: 4
It is amazing that two companies that had such a close symbiotic relationship for so long could now be so openly hostile towards one another. I would contend that for many years graphic designers kept Apple afloat using Adobe products on Macs. I think this has changed now that Apple has "magical" devices like the iPhone, iPad, iPod etc. and that is what Apple is banking on, not needing Adobe anymore. Still, seems a little dickish on Jobs' part. Adobe going away could still hurt Apple.




Adobe is a closed ecosystem, HTML 5 is not
By sapiens74 on 4/21/2010 2:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with Steveo on this one. I could care less what his hidden motives are, flash has done nothing but cause me to have an extra addon for Firefox




By Akrovah on 4/22/2010 6:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
Thats not the argument at present.

The issue now is Apple basically locking developers into thier development platform, whether it is actually the best suited to the developer's goals or not. This is a completely ludicris thing to do. If the resultant binaries are the same, then what does it matter what language it was writen in or what development platform was used?


What about Carmak?
By JKflipflop98 on 4/22/2010 12:24:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not a big software guy, so I don't totally understand most of the restriction.

My question is, would this have any effect on ID Software's upcoming RAGE game? John Carmack said it would run on iPhone and iPad. Then again, Carmack is some kind of digital wizard and would find a way to make it work anyways, I would imagine.




RE: What about Carmak?
By Akrovah on 4/22/2010 6:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
ID Software generally writes thier games in C/C++ so I don't think this will affect them at all.


Adobe should drop CS from Mac.
By Yawgm0th on 4/21/2010 2:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
No more Creative Suite for Mac. Yes, Adobe will take a huge hit, but Apple will take a bigger hit. Apple will lose its edge in the "creative people" (ie design professionals and trendy hipsters with too much money) while Microsoft gets a boost from Windows sales (dual-booting Macs will become more common as the die-hards refuse to switch hardware). I think people whose income is dependent upon this stuff are going to leave Mac before they leave Photoshop.

Plus, it will take years for the changes to really be effected. It gives Steve time to change his mind and appease Adobe (and consumers).




RE: Adobe should drop CS from Mac.
By sapiens74 on 4/21/10, Rating: -1
By themaster08 on 4/21/2010 4:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
Type Creative Suite Mac in Google, and before pressing enter, look at the very first suggestion it gives.


Ain't seen nothing yet
By morphologia on 4/21/2010 2:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
For his next trick, Pharaoh Steve Ho Tep will demand that the Hebrews make bricks without straw.

He will then demand that all of Apple's manufacturing partners switch to photonic process instead of electronics, and insist that all materials used to make Apple products are biodegradeable.

Finally, he will mandate that all Apple employees must speak only in Esperanto, at all times.




Repent !The End is Nigh
By nothingbutrich on 4/22/2010 11:58:24 AM , Rating: 2
ilence, infidel, Brother Jobs in his infinite wisdom knows what is best for you. If he orders you to speak only beautiful Applese words of love and friendship like "html 5" and "h.264" and "JavaScript" you will do as such. And if you are one of those evil pirate sorts, the supreme overlord will banish you to your land of swearing,windows 7, baby shakers, third party hardware,flash, and other unholy evils.




Flash is Closed and Proprietary
By Ard on 4/22/2010 3:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's the pot calling the kettle black...




Ipod monopoly
By karlostomy on 4/21/2010 8:59:20 PM , Rating: 1
Doesn't the ipod have an mp3 player monopoly?

When is the EU going to legislate that Apple include a ballot screen into its ipod os such that users can select whatever video codecs they want?

Clearly, Apple is abusing its position of ipod dominance to unfairly gain an advantage over other software providers.

Wasn't there a precedent for this kind of thing, just recently?
;)




Stupid Adobe got what it deserved
By Pirks on 4/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: Stupid Adobe got what it deserved
By satveeraj on 4/21/2010 4:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
And for once if you could crawl out of your basement and smell the fresh air then we wont have to deal with your Fanboyism either.


RE: Stupid Adobe got what it deserved
By cyberserf on 4/22/2010 6:03:45 AM , Rating: 2
Since you are so smart, can you please tell us in what part of his statement did the person above you ever mention anything about ever using a MAC?


By DigitalFreak on 4/22/2010 9:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
You must be new. Anyone who's been here awhile knows all about Pirks.


By Shatbot on 4/22/2010 11:24:19 AM , Rating: 1
C'mon; no "normal" user of any platform gives two shits about coding language. I have a perfect example- happypencil.com . Just a random, out of the hat website by an artist. He made his site ALL flash, who the fuck should tell me that I can't see this website because of some arbitrary-bullshit decision by some random guy who built my hardware? The internet is the internet, and now his site would be "off limits" (unless he re-does his site), on some whim from Apple.

Apple can go suck a tube steak. If you don't like flash, make a "disable flash option". Easy. This has nothing to do with cpu usage or stability.

Nutshell.


By DigitalFreak on 4/22/2010 9:11:42 PM , Rating: 1
Damn, we need to be able to rate Pirks lower than just -1!


The audacity of Apple versus the audacity of Adobe
By Tony Swash on 4/21/10, Rating: -1
By DFranch on 4/21/2010 12:59:12 PM , Rating: 4
How much money was Adobe supposed to spend to develop state of the art programs for the Mac? The Mac was like 2% of the market for most of the last 15 years. What was the cost benefit to Adobe. Apple is lucky Adobe supported them at all. Now that Apple is doing well they crap all over Adobe by banning them. Real nice!


By Alexstarfire on 4/21/2010 6:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
How exactly would Adobe "take over" app development on the iPhone? If by "take over" you mean alternative then yes, they will take over. Although given that they would be able to use it for cross-development most people probably would start using it, but that's the way things work when your product is superior in certain aspects, being compatibility in this case.

I don't use Apple devices so I could care less what happens between them and Adobe. I just find it retarded the stuff Apple can get away with that Microsoft couldn't even dream of without being sued.


By Tony Swash on 4/22/2010 6:35:02 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
How exactly would Adobe "take over" app development on the iPhone?


OK lets spell this out for you. Lets say developers are allowed to use Adobe's development platform for iPhone apps. The whole point of Adobe's system, the way it would have been marketed at app developers is that by using it you could write once and deploy everywhere - that is a developer could write an app using the Adobe system and churn out an identical version for Android, iPhone, Microsoft Phone 7 (unless blocked by MS of course). Lets say a significant number of developers go the Adobe route - that's the intention otherwise why would Adobe bother.

So far seemingly so good.

Lets assume that Adobe's system is upgraded on roughly the same cycle as its other major products - so we are talking perhaps 18 months or two years between major upgrades.

Lets also assume that in the interim between Adobe upgrades Apple rolls out a major new version of iPhone OS and/or a major hardware upgrade to its iDevices and/or a major new category of iDevice. Apple's record in doing these things is that they are moving pretty briskly with a minimum of a major upgrade to the iPhone OS and hardware once every 12 months. So Apple introduces some swish exciting new features (a central plank of Apple's strategy is to move faster that its competitors to stay ahead of the crowd - that's the basis of their recent amazing success) and naturally Apple would want the App developer community to implement these new features as quickly as possible - thats the whole point.

However Apple now has a major problem. A big chunk of its App developer community is now using the Adobe development platform. Adobe announces that they won't be able implement the new features for at least 18 months, it has to fit into Adobes product development cycle and anyway Adobe would like the the non-Apple market to catch up so that its product continues to be cross platform (remember - thats the basis on which its is marketed).

So Apple are fucked. They have lost control of the development cycle of their own products. Their unique selling points have disappeared, they can no longer sprint ahead of the competition.

This is not such a very hypothetical situation. Imagine Apple's iPad introduction if a significant section of the App developer community was using the Adobe development platform. Apple's announces the product and explains the new iPad devices features, its new screen resolution, etc, and urges all developers to start developing apps with a launch date set four months in the future. Adobe says it won't be able to support the new device for at least 12 months. Apple are fucked.

The idea that Adobe is slow (some would say down right shit) in supporting new Apple technologies is not exactly far fetched. There are many examples - the Creative Suite is only now partially making the transition to the MacOSX native code base tens years after it was introduced.

Now given all this, given the possible way this could pan out for Apple - what conceivable reason would they have for allowing such a thing to come about. If they did they would be idiots.

If you want to know what brings Apple and Steve Job's to worry about the scenario I have sketched out its because they have been here before. See this:

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macin...


By Alexstarfire on 4/22/2010 10:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting. Without knowing how flash works on mobile devices I don't think I could say anything definitive, BUT if it's anything like what is available for computers then I don't think there would be anything else they'd have to add support for a long time. Computers have long since have more functionality than phones, hence it should be supported by Flash already. The gyro might be the one thing they'd have to add support for, but that's in every version of the iPhone already so no problems there. What do you anticipate them adding that support in Flash shouldn't already be there?

Anyway, Apple also isn't supporting Java which is also cross-platform. Might be easy to look at them not supporting Adobe and saying what you said, but Apple just doesn't want cross-platform in general. It's no wonder why they don't want that and/or Flash support. Apple is by far the greediest company around. Makes Enron look like a joke.


By ekv on 4/21/2010 8:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Essentially Adobe would then be in a position to dictate the pace and nature of app development for iDevices.
But instead it is Apple dictating to Adobe ... and that does chaff the latter's hide.

The audacity of Adobe is providing crappy software, (seemingly) in perpetuity. Teh audacity of Apple is Steve Jobs doing to others what Gates did to him.

I don't care for either company. I'd be surprised if you couldn't find alternative products that are better and cost less, across both their entire lines. It seems that both have a certain corporate ethos .... It's like you're buying a brand and not a product, like Gap and Nordstrom's and all the other teeny-bopper stuff. If you can afford that then it's a free country -- well, kind of. [Certainly not on the iPhone, where the dev contract is positively Machiavellian]


By Sazar on 4/21/2010 4:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
I have to say, any site that I use QT on slows to a crawl worse than when I visit a flash based site :)

In all these years, Apple has found a way to FORCE people to use QT and yet hasn't been able to provide a usable product that isn't still besieged by issues on the Windows Platform.

Kudo's Steve.

Btw, now that Steve and Warnock have invented the desktop publishing industry, can we insinuate they also invented the internet, the computer, the microprocessor, the transistor, silicon, electricity and all related items and just give them the patents for it?

While the article you quote is interesting, it misses a basic fact. IF Flash were accepted, Jobs would lose control over a massive revenue stream, forcing people to use HIS approved applications from HIS application market.

It's all about the benjamins.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














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