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.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














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