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

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


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














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