Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Iphone Apple

Adobe Evangelist Lashes Out Over Apple's "Original Language" Policy 789

Posted by timothy
from the flash-of-anger dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Apple's recent decision to restrict the languages that may be used for iPhone and iPad development has provoked some invective from Adobe's platform evangelist Lee Brimelow. He writes on TheFlashBlog, 'This has nothing to do whatsoever with bringing the Flash player to Apple's devices. That is a separate discussion entirely. What they are saying is that they won't allow applications onto their marketplace solely because of what language was originally used to create them. This is a frightening move that has no rational defense other than wanting tyrannical control over developers and more importantly, wanting to use developers as pawns in their crusade against Adobe. This does not just affect Adobe but also other technologies like Unity3D.' He ends his post with, 'Speaking purely for myself, I would look to make it clear what is going through my mind at the moment. Go screw yourself Apple. Comments disabled as I'm not interested in hearing from the Cupertino Comment SPAM bots.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Evangelist Lashes Out Over Apple's "Original Language" Policy

Comments Filter:
  • 1984? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Crock23A (1124275) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @04:48PM (#31801966)
    Yeah, I read the book and I saw the commercial. Ironic.
    • Yeah, I read the book and I saw the commercial. Ironic.

      This week, Slashdot featured a really good article form Slate [slashdot.org] that ended with this quote [slate.com]:

      Steve Wozniak has said that he pre-ordered three iPads, two for himself and one for a friend. This is a testament to his incredible good nature and his loyalty both to the firm that marginalized him in the 1980s and to a friend, Jobs, who refused to write a foreword for his memoirs. Yet somewhere, deep inside, Wozniak must realize what the release of the iPad signifies: The company he once built now, officially, no longer exists.

      That last sentence is really the core problem here. We were used to Steve Wozniak's Apple and we were in love with that Apple. Now the only Apple left is Steve Job's Apple. Times have changed but before we cast acerbic words [paulgraham.com] at Jobs you must acknowledge he has led the company in a very profitable direction. Could he have done that while adhering to Wozniak's "open" idealism [paulgraham.com]? That's the real debate here.

      • by TheKidWho (705796) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @04:58PM (#31802076)

        No, the geeks at /. are in love with Woz's Apple, everyone else is in love with Steve's Apple.

      • by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:34PM (#31802468) Homepage Journal
        Steve Wozniak's Apple ceased to be, long before Apple forced out Steve Jobs. His was the Apple of the Apple II. The Apple your ilk fantasize about, so far as I can tell, never really existed, as the Apple of Spindler, et al., certainly wasn't anything like either the Apple of Wozniak, nor of Jobs. Frankly, none of the Apple between the Apple II, and the advent of Mac OS X was really all that interesting. There are parts to love, and parts to hate, but Apple is certainly interesting, in the modern, "return of Jobs" era.
        • by fruitbane (454488) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @06:10PM (#31802820) Homepage

          Under Scully, and later, Spindler, Apple certainly wasn't as monetarily successful, but the company did see a great measure of valuable hardware and software experimentation without which the computing world would be a much less interesting place. Firewire, Apple Newton (would there even be an iPhone or iPad today without the Newton?), IBM's continued development of the Power line and the CPUs that power the GameCube, the Wii, and the Xbox 360 (linked to Apple if not emerging directly from Apple), Open Transport (fantastic technology which SHOULD have been extended through to OS X), HyperCard... There's more but I've been out of the loop long enough it's hard to recall everything.

          No, when Jobs was originally removed from the company it was because he was in danger of driving it into the ground. While Apple still eventually saw some decline, they certainly hung in there and released lots of great technologies and ideas, even if some of the implementations were lacking or too ahead of the market. Jobs was brought back to save the company he almost sank. Jobs needed that time away and Apple needed that time to explore the market and technology. When the two were reunited both had grown in important ways. The modern Apple would probably not be the success it is without Jobs, but Jobs could not have created this Apple without his time away from the company in which the company was able to explore avenues Jobs would never have allowed.

          The question now is, will this cycle somehow repeat itself in some way?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by nnnnnnn (1611817)
      IBM: No, I am your father.
      Apple: NO, No, that's not true, that's impossible.
      IBM: Search your feelings, you know it be true.
      Apple: NOOOO, NOOOOO
      IBM: Join me and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son.
      Apple: Yes father.
    • by stephanruby (542433) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:09PM (#31802208)
      Is the Unity3D [unity3d.com] Game Engine threatened? I doubt it. Adobe, yes. Unity, no. I think this Adobe guy is reading between the lines of Apple's announcement. He knows Flash (its code generator workaround, not Flash itself) will be targeted, but not Unity3D. He's only trying to get Apple to admit its hidden agenda, or goad them into banning Unity3D to maintain consistency (which would only go against Apple's interests, Unity3D already has many top selling titles, the code generator from Adobe is not even close).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by the_humeister (922869)

        Except you might be in trouble if you use C# or Boo for your game script since the scripting is build on Mono!

      • by Maestro4k (707634) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @07:53PM (#31803630) Journal

        Is the Unity3D [unity3d.com] Game Engine threatened? I doubt it. Adobe, yes. Unity, no. I think this Adobe guy is reading between the lines of Apple's announcement. He knows Flash (its code generator workaround, not Flash itself) will be targeted, but not Unity3D. He's only trying to get Apple to admit its hidden agenda, or goad them into banning Unity3D to maintain consistency (which would only go against Apple's interests, Unity3D already has many top selling titles, the code generator from Adobe is not even close).

        It's not just him, Ars Technica has a writeup [arstechnica.com] about the new terms and they felt it was probably targeting Adobe and Google both, by making it harder to do cross-platform development. (Since it basically outlaws many development tools.) Ars lists "Novell's MonoTouch, Unity3D, or Ansca's Corona" as definitely going against the new terms, and "Appcelerator's Titanium and PhoneGap" as questionable (in they might or might not run afoul of Apple's gatekeepers).

        In all honesty the new clause is ridiculous, have you read it? It says:

        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).

        Another thing pointed out (by this developer/blogger [whydoeseve...ngsuck.com]):

        Developers are not free to use any tools to help them. If there is some tool that converts some Pascal or, Ruby, or Java into Objective-C it is out of bounds, because then the code is not “originally” written in C. This is akin to telling people what kind of desk people sit at when they write software for the iPhone. Or perhaps what kind of music they listen to. Or what kind of clothes they should be wearing. This is *INSANE*.

        Ars also pointed out that at its most extreme the wording would ban writing English pseudocode first, because then the application would not "be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript".

        And yes, Unity3d is threatened as it allows you to use C#, which is then compiled down into native ARM assembler. You know, just like Adobe's Flash CS5 was going to let you use Flash to develop iPhone apps and compile it down into ARM assembler. Want to make any bets on whether Apple's consistent on enforcement and bans all Unity3D developed games as well as all future Flash CS5 developed apps?

      • by MrSteveSD (801820) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @10:58PM (#31804820)

        Is the Unity3D Game Engine threatened?

        It looks very much like it will be. The forums are buzzing with fear and anger over there. It also affects a number of other tools including mono-touch. It really goes way beyond Adobe and is going to hurt a lot of developers. If people start using cross-platform toolkits to produce iPhone Apps, the apps are not going to be exclusive for the iPhone. If the same apps are available on Android and other platforms, the iPhone is less of a compelling purchase. That's probably the real reason Java is not allowed. It's not an issue with virtual machines, it's that they want applications to be exclusively developed for the iPhone.

        I don't think I'd want to risk time and money writing apps for such a closed system. Even if you totally follow their rules and stick to using their tool chain, who knows what horrors the Terms of Service in version 5.0 of the OS will bring?

  • by ip_freely_2000 (577249) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @04:51PM (#31802002)
    ....only allows you to speak English when using an Iphone.
  • by the_humeister (922869) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @04:51PM (#31802010)

    It's Apple. For at least 10 years people have been saying that if Apple had MS's market share that things would actually be worse than they are now. Well, now we get a small hint of things to come. OTOH, perhaps Apple is so large now their left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing.

  • by theodp (442580) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @04:52PM (#31802024)

    Steve Jobs Has Just Gone Mad [whydoeseve...ngsuck.com]: "If you need to "originally" write your code in Swahili, while listening to Milli Vanilli, while reclining in a patch of mud, and then you need fifty oompa loompas to translate the Swahili into C, that is none of Steve Jobs fucking business. And the idea, which I am sure is actually the plan, that he will inspect application code to figure out what the "original" language is that the code was written in is just plain pathological."

  • by symbolset (646467) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @04:56PM (#31802056) Journal

    What's more interesting to me is that Adobe is now under fire both from Microsoft, who has been trying to supplant all of their software with their own stack, and now Apple. It seems like the only friends Adobe has these days are Linux and Android.

    So, hey, Adobe: have you started porting Photoshop yet?

  • by BearRanger (945122) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @04:59PM (#31802092)

    Apple hasn't forgotten the lesson they learned from IBM and others. Allowing developers to use proprietary tools like Adobe's Flash suite makes them dependent on Adobe's development cycle and not their own. Apple claims to have just released 1500 new API's for iPhone OS. How long will it take for Adobe to support them with their development tools? About as long is it takes to get a version of Flash for OSX that doesn't use 99% of the CPU? Or as long as it takes IBM to release a 3 GHz G5?

    Not all issues surrounding control are negative. Sometimes it's just about controlling your own destiny and place in the market.

    • by Threni (635302) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:12PM (#31802246)

      > Not all issues surrounding control are negative. Sometimes it's just about controlling your own destiny and place in the market.

      But the reports I've read suggest that Android is going to own the iPhone, because loads of manufacturers are either releasing or planning to release phones, laptops and other devices using Android, as opposed to the small number Apple is going to be able to support. Also, developers are pissed off with the control. Sure, they'll put up with it whilst dreaming of making some stupid app which'll make their fortune, but that was 2008/9 and now they've experienced the however many month delay while Apple figure out whether your app is going to bypass their control (wifi, emulation, whatever this weeks dumb rule is) before sticking it on their website they're much more likely to take a good look at the totally open java/c++/linux combo of Android and have a play with it.

      • by uprise78 (1256084) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:36PM (#31802482)
        Actually, you are wrong. I am a developer of both .NET and iPhone apps. The gold rush is officially over on the iPhone. That is true. You need a *really* good app and great marketing to back it up to succeed right now. I have had 3 apps rejected never to see the light of day in the App Store. They were all a bit *edgy* so I'm not gonna cry about the rejection. The reality of the situation is for the most part (98+% of the time) things are pretty smooth going through the review process. 2 - 7 days wait these days. Android is growing and that is good. Android is also growing more and more fragmented. That is not so good. Fact is most developers aren't "ake a good look at the totally open java/c++/linux combo of Android" until things change on that front. You have to look at the big picture. To make an Android app you have to contend with multiple screen sizes, multiple CPU's and multiple OS versions. It takes significantly longer to make an Android app than an iPhone app. Apple actually provides a TON of great tools, really great documentation and a very feature rich core framework. Android just doesn't have all this yet. The day will come when it will, but how fragmented will Android be then?
    • by rehabdoll (221029) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:16PM (#31802284) Homepage

      So you're saying Apple are actually saving us from vendor lock-in by controlling us? How generous of them.

  • Hmm. I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peacefinder (469349) <alan...dewitt@@@gmail...com> on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:04PM (#31802160) Journal

    Do you suppose Steve Jobs might still be upset about the long delays in Adobe's release of OSX/Intel native products?

    Nah.

  • Missing Reason (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:06PM (#31802174)

    Actually, I read about this the other day. Rumor has it, the language requirements actually do have a purpose, that is making sure the apps work with the new profiled multitasking setups. Supposedly cross compiled apps don't behave in the same way and individual threads can't be halted to save battery and processing power the same way that native apps can.

    Whether or not that is true is a bit above my head. The claim has been made that all of Apple's fancy tricks with threat pausing, fail completely with cross-compiled apps and as a result those apps perform very badly with regard to battery drain. This is somewhat supported by the fact that Apple has applied this only to the version of iPhone OS that includes multitasking and not to older versions including current development for 3.x.

    Others have also faulted Gruber for misquoting them in his rant by claiming Unity3D will no longer be allowed, despite the fact that the person he was quoting said maybe it will or maybe it won't as it is actually a pre-compiler and it does create objective C source files. The rant should be taken with a grain of salt as it is from a fairly biased Adobe employee.

    • Re:Missing Reason (Score:5, Insightful)

      by beakerMeep (716990) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @06:05PM (#31802770)
      Litany of excuses. As the AC said, supposedly, supposedly. The fact of the matter is apple already controls which apps gain approval, so any quality control argument is nonsense. Not to mention some of the undoubtedly bad apps on the app store already. The plain truth is people have come to associate Flash and advertising and have put on emotional blinders to everything else. If this was not about Flash, Slashdot would be outraged.
    • by weston (16146) <westonsd AT canncentral DOT org> on Saturday April 10, 2010 @06:10PM (#31802818) Homepage

      Actually, I read about this the other day. Rumor has it, the language requirements actually do have a purpose, that is making sure the apps work with the new profiled multitasking setups. Supposedly cross compiled apps don't behave in the same way

      That's plausible (a little tenuous, but plausible) if you're talking about restrictions against using another toolchain to build your binary.

      But section 3.3.1 also bans upstream tools that generate code consumed by Apple's toolchain. You can't write code in another language to write C/C++/ObjC code for you. Which means you're telling developers that they can't write tools that make their lives easier. What's the justification for that?

      Here's an already popular iPad app essentially written using Mathematica [popsci.com]:

      A complete rendering pass for the e-book requires running eight parallel Mathematica processes for a couple of days on the fastest available 8-core Macintosh. But it is a completely automated process, turning a terabyte of image archives into a finished, fully operational 1.9 gigabyte iPad app. This complete automation meant that we were able to experiment with dozens of different layouts and styles, concentrating on creativity, not the grunt work of manual file processing, yet still be able to see the finished book in action after each tweak.

      Apparently it runs afoul if 3.3.1.

      Frankly, it's not clear to me that every iPhone app doesn't run afoul of 3.3.1. Unless you actually think in C/C++/Objective C, every program is arguably first a set of cognitive abstractions in a human brain. Or, as this article [joeberkovitz.com] puts it, with this restriction, "Apple may thus be the first company to bet the farm on Cartesian dualism."

      There are other problems [knowing.net] with Apple's approach.

    • Re:Missing Reason (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fitten (521191) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @10:10PM (#31804508)

      That's the problem... tons of non-technical people (and Apple fans) will just take whatever Jobs tells them as gospel without checking up on the facts or anything.

      What about all of the non-OS4 apps that are written? They've never used those APIs. So, are they all suddenly going to perform very badly with regard to battery drain? Since they aren't "multitasking", I'm guessing that would be a "no"... since they have to actually, you know, use the new APIs to actually multitask (or not, if they don't want to participate in that). The "pausing" is because the app receives a message from the OS and then the app can elect to ignore it (as will all pre-OS4 apps because, again, they weren't written to acknowledge those messages) or to save its state. If it doesn't save its state then it doesn't 'pause', it just starts over from initial run. If it does save its state, then it has paused and can pick up where it left off when it gets another (new) message to resume.

      The cross compiled stuff is also used to throw off non-technical people. As long as the executable program output by the compiler uses the correct methodology, code in it can be linked to the system libraries to perform the tasks exactly as the Obj-C or whatever ones can. If it didn't make the executable right it wouldn't run correctly anyway. Here's something that is disallowed with this thing... I could write an Obj-C routine that does everything perfectly with respect to the new APIs and all that, but if that Obj-C routine then calls something that was written in another language, somehow it suddenly breaks stuff? It simply doesn't happen that way. As long as the compiler is doing its job properly (and they tend to do that), there's no way the OS could tell what language the application was written in. That's why they are APIs... that stands for Application Programming Interface... Interface being a key word... it's how you interface to the libraries. You have to interface to them correctly or all bets are off in the first place. Choice of language is otherwise completely irrelevant as long as it *interfaces* correctly.

      Also, applications being written in C/C++/Obj-C have absolutely zero guarantee that they'll meet the requirments. They could have poor battery usage, poor UIs, etc. just like any other app written in any other language. In fact, there are tons of apps in the AppStore that were written in the "blessed languages" that are crappy. If Apple wanted to make sure things conformed to a stricter UI guideline and such, then they could start by actually, you know, putting stricter UI requirements in place and rejecting the ones that don't measure up *regardless* of language it was written in. However, this is clearly not the purpose of the disclosed requirements.

      There has been nothing that Apple or any Apple fan defending Apple has said that holds up to logic. The *only* goals of this are: to make cross-platform development as difficult as possible (thus making developers who originally saved time/money by using cross-development tools have to make a choice of whether to support the iPhone or support another mobile platform... and having two code bases is more than 2x the work and cost so it may be too expensive for some developers to do... thus making them choose which to do), and to hurt Adobe (because Jobs is throwing another temper tantrum), Google (because Droid is dangerous to Apple), and Microsoft (who might someday have a product worthy of competition in that market). This is anticompetitive behavior in its purist form.

  • Anything but Flash (Score:5, Interesting)

    by introspekt.i (1233118) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:07PM (#31802178)
    If it was anything other than Flash, and anyone other than Apple I'm sure more people would be outraged. To me this is more of Apple's and its control MO vs. the last decade's "rich internet architecture". Apple's doing what it always does, control its platform. I'm not sure why anybody's so surprised. I've been burned by the lock-in, lock-out myself (DISCLAIMER: I do own an Apple computer), but, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over the marginalization of the Flash platform on the iPhone OS. I think most died-in-the-wool Apple users feel this way (ho hum/ meh), and Apple is willing to take advantage of this sentiment to further shape their own platform the way they want it. Right? Wrong? I don't think this is really a question of ethics or morals. I think it's Apple having their own way, and people with dollars not caring enough to get mad and go elsewhere.
  • by blahbooboo (839709) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:07PM (#31802188)
    You know, everyone keeps complaining about all this "control" apple has on the iphone. And now, to read how they are worse than Microsoft.

    First, Flash sucks for me as a user so I am thrilled it's going to die. Sorry if a few developers love it, but that's not my problem nor do I care if they have to learn new things. Thank you Apple.

    Second, as an iPhone user there is nothing I miss on a daily basis being able to do with the iPhone. Do I wish that there was more flexibility with some apps? Yes. Do I think it's this huge deal, no. Fact is the control Apple is doing has benefits and negatives. For most people the benefits of a closed community, screened apps that haven't had viruses or malware, and a wonderful intuitive GUI (IMHO, Android is getting closer but is still not consistent nor as intuitive as iphone or Palm WebOs) and easy upgrades that actually are released to the phones (as opposed to the fragmentation that's Android) is worthwhile. Fact is Android Droid are STILL waiting for Verizon to let them get 2.1 of Android. How's that for control? If you want control, get yourself an out of contract pay as you go GSM type phone (like the Nokia or somethiing). But for the rest of us people who just need a smartphone and not a portable computer, the iphone is a great device.

  • by smcdow (114828) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:08PM (#31802190) Homepage

    Apple is lock-in. Adobe is lock-in. You have a choice of how you'll be locked in. What's the point of developing software?

  • Conclusions? (Score:4, Informative)

    by mr100percent (57156) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:08PM (#31802206) Homepage Journal

    People are jumping to too many conclusions here. Apple updated the developer terms, and has not confirmed that they will shut Adobe-compiled apps out. The compile-flash-to-iPhone feature from Adobe is vaporware anyway for now, as Adobe hasn't really shown it that publicly yet. Appleinsider is reporting that the ban is not from spite but for technical reasons [macnn.com]; as cross-compiled code may interfere with the proper multitasking coming out in iPhoneOS 4.0.

    I won't get mad at Apple until it's confirmed that they are shutting it out. Apple selectively enforces it's developer rules (they let Google's app through when it used private APIs), and Apple hasn't commented on the Flash-compiler controversy. No, a ranting Adobe evangelist has as little information as you or I do at the moment.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by PolyDwarf (156355)

      "proper multitasking" and what Apple is doing don't belong in the same sentence.

      If it *was* proper multi-tasking (and the cross-compile didn't do stupid things, of course), there wouldn't be a problem.

      • Re:Conclusions? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @06:04PM (#31802764)

        "proper multitasking" and what Apple is doing don't belong in the same sentence.

        I disagree. What Apple is doing is more complex than is normal, but it also yields better results for platforms where battery and processing power are important limitations.

        If it *was* proper multi-tasking (and the cross-compile didn't do stupid things, of course), there wouldn't be a problem.

        If the apps thread strangely and don't have clean enough code separations, then it will not be finely grained enough to pause parts of it usefully and those apps will not perform well. It's not entirely unreasonable for Apple to require decent performance with their provided APIs to keep from tarnishing the brand by having their entire device perform poorly as a result of these third party apps.

    • by metamatic (202216)

      ...as cross-compiled code may interfere with the proper multitasking coming out in iPhoneOS 4.0.

      proper multi-tasking pre-emptively schedules any kind of process, without it needing to be specially written or compiled to support multi-tasking.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "cross-compiled code may interfere with the proper multitasking coming out in iPhoneOS 4.0."

      Not very proper multitasking then, if it is dependent on which programming language your software was written in. If the iPhone OS cannot multitask random processes, written with any set of tools, then it does not even come close to meeting my personal quality standards. If that is Apple quality, I will stay even further away from Apple than I was already...
  • What's the fuss? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gilesjuk (604902) <giles DOT jones AT zen DOT co DOT uk> on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:14PM (#31802260)

    Apple just doesn't want lousy bloated code that is generated badly and lazily from some bloated Adobe app that probably costs a fortune.

    XCode is free, Cocao touch and ObjC is much nicer to use than most mobile platforms (Symbian is horrid). Why buy some Adobe toolkit and churn out rubbish?

    Developers for games consoles have to use the official SDK, why should a handheld gaming platform (that is also a phone) be any different?

  • by repetty (260322) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:27PM (#31802384) Homepage

    Five Tremendous Apple vs. Adobe Flash Myths

    http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/04/10/five-tremendous-apple-vs-adobe-flash-myths/ [roughlydrafted.com]

    A bit of his summary:

    And so, through a mix of incompetence, belligerence and emotionalist hypocrisy, Adobe has been pumping a non-stop stream of propaganda about how critically important Flash is on mobile devices, even though millions of people been using the highest ranked smartphone for three years now without suffering any ill (not even the rest of humanity on lessor smartphones have missed being able to render desktop Flash content, because they haven’t been able to either). There’s a reason for all that talk: Adobe is terrified.

    • by abigsmurf (919188) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @06:35PM (#31803084)
      That is a horribly fanboyish article. Most of the points are basically "HOW DARE ADOBE QUESTION APPLE?!?", anyhow, lets refute the points.

      1: Neither Nintendo or MS made any pretences about how open their development is (nintendo: follow our rules to the letter, MS: follow our rules, use XNA to make that easier). However not only have Apple made big noises about how easy it is for anyone to develop a huge range of apps for the iphone, they've actively forcibly removed a popular method of coding games by a company they're competing with (hello anti-trust!)

      2: Apple like to say they have the complete web on the iphone. Without Flash it isn't the complete web. That is moot however as this point uses circular reasoning. Given that most of that smart phone traffic is from iphones, his point is basically saying "all iphones don't run flash! Therefore it is good that iphones don't run flash" (gotta love logical fallacies).

      3: This isn't even a myth, it's something pissed off people would like to see Adobe do but no one really expects them to pull out of one of their main markets. He still struggles to try and make an argument here and basically settles on a vaguely straw man like agument; "Microsoft make some money on macs so this means it's impossible!".

      4: Anti-trust. Look it up. you cannot abuse market dominance to actively force companies out of business, especially if the dominance is in a market area. They don't 'owe' Adobe a living but neither do they have the right to actively try to destroy them.

      5: Yeah... This is pretty much entirely "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION APPLE" and deliberately obfuscates the difference between including flash in the browser and banning flash being used as a development platform for their devices or allowing a flash player.
  • Get over it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stefaanh (189270) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:32PM (#31802430)

    Somehow, developers have to realize that the iPhone, iPad (and in a certain way an iMac too) are no longer meant to be computers with an operating system. They are devices with an API. As far as I see these API's are trying to protect the devices (and the company and the users).

    Get over it.

    • Re:Get over it. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Flipao (903929) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @06:24PM (#31802976)

      Somehow, developers have to realize that the iPhone, iPad (and in a certain way an iMac too) are no longer meant to be computers with an operating system. They are devices with an API. As far as I see these API's are trying to protect the devices (and the company and the users).

      Get over it.

      If people bend over each and every time a device like that comes out, the day will come when every single mainstream computer will be nothing more than a device with an API.

  • by halfdan the black (638018) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @05:42PM (#31802552)
    All CS5 does is build an executable with the whole flash interpreter statically linked in. Any flash apps build with CS5 would have been just as bad as flash apps displayed in WebKit, because the flash runtime IS AN ABSOLUTE STINKING PILE OF CRAP on any platform other then Windows.

    Before I got flashblock, any site I would visit with flash adds would instantly send my processors to about %60, and the fans would start spinning (X3100 MacBook). The situation is even worse in Linux. Would you expect the flash runtime to be any better on the iPhone????

    This is the exact same crap that Semantec pulled in the 90's with their 'java compiler', they advertised a java dev tool that I paid about 150$ for that claimed to produce native executables. Well, technically it did, they produced an giant executable, with the entire java interpreter statically linked in, and your code statically linked in, so at runtime it would just interpret your code using the linked in interpreter.

    Same freaking thing that CS5 does.

    All Apple it trying to do is limit the number of crap applications. If there are all of a sudden all kinds of apps built on flash, battery life drops to minutes, then people will be pissed and most likely blame apple, when its flash's fault.

    And their probably is no way to even write a runtime for flash that will not drain battery, because flash is all timer based. The runtime needs to allocate all kinds of timers that are firing at a very fast rate, so there would be NO POSSIBLE WAY to suspend the app in a multitasking env.

    I do think Apple went a bit too far, I think they should have allowed apps written in Python/Ruby or some other decent lang, but absolutely ban flash.

    And BTW, what is more cross platform then C/C++ and Javascript???

    Note, even if they somehow figured out a way to compile CraptionScript to native code, the fundamental problem is the TIMER /EVENT based programming model of flash, where the runtime creates a timer that fires every millisecond to tiger the animations and craptionscript events. CPU usage was not one of the design goals of flash, the fundamental design goal of it was to make obnoxious animations trivial by point and click development tools. Hogging CPU resources was fine I suppose on desktop machines with unlimited power resources, but its a no-go on devices with limited battery capacity.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      "the fundamental problem is the TIMER /EVENT" That's worth an insightful mod. And there is no way adobe can change that baring a total rewrite, which I believe, is not really a bad idea for adobe.
  • Adobe FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sribe (304414) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @06:00PM (#31802738)

    ...no rational defense other than wanting tyrannical control...

    Well, maybe no rational defense other than not wanting apps that drag along a horribly crash-prone Flash runtime--extrapolating from experience with Flash on OS X.

    Or, maybe no rational defense other than not wanting apps that are built for some kind of cursor device and will deliver a horrible user experience on a touch-only device.

  • by Chris Tucker (302549) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @06:05PM (#31802772) Homepage

    Just a thought.

    When tens of thousands of Android phones get 0wned, due to some Flash exploit, for example, and at the same time, hundreds of thousands of iPhones don't get 0wned by any exploit, who do you think will be smiling quietly to himself at all the bad publicity towards Android & Google, and at the increase in stock price of Apple.

    I don't care that the iPhone is locked down. I don't care that the iPad is locked down. I can write all the software I want for my several Macs here in my home. Not being allowed to do the same for an iPhone or iPad is not something that particularly troubles me.

    If I may quote myself from some years back (with a slight rewriting):

    You are not the target audience for the iPhone/iPad.

    You have never been the target audience for the iPhone/iPad.

    You will never be the target audience for the iPhone/iPad.

    Really, you might as well be griping about the lack of Ogg Vorbis support in iTunes and the iPod for all the good your whining is going to do.

    • by Flipao (903929) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @06:33PM (#31803072)

      Just a thought. When tens of thousands of Android phones get 0wned, due to some Flash exploit, for example, and at the same time, hundreds of thousands of iPhones don't get 0wned by any exploit, who do you think will be smiling quietly to himself at all the bad publicity towards Android & Google

      Fear is such an useful tool to keep people quiet and compliant.

  • by guidryp (702488) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @06:10PM (#31802822)

    Adobe wants to make Flash the platform for mobile devices.

    Apple wants to keep application development native so the can control their own platform.

    Both of these are reasonable goals.

    Personally I would rather have native applications, than cross platform Flash-to-App generator.

    If you think there is too much crapware in the Appstore now, what would it look like when every flash writer starts hitting "convert to iPhone button"?

    So while I don't know if that wording change means that there will be no Flash-to-App conversion in the Appstore, I certainly hope that is the case.

    I am sad that nothing can be done to keep it off Android...

  • Blah, Blah, blah. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @06:41PM (#31803132)

    Bottom line:

    I'll be getting an iPad. I'll be upgrading my v1 iPhone to the new one that come out this summer.

    And so will millions of others...

    Lee Brimelow may be right, or he may not. I don't have time to read the article. But I will say that if he ever hopes to resolve the situation, as an Adobe employee complaining in public in an (apparently) official capacity, he's not helping the situation. This only adds to the bad vibes, and Steve is stubborn and this will only serve to bolster his resolve if it does anything at all.

    In my personal experience Adobe products, especially CS4 and acrobat, have become unwieldy, bloated pieces of software on the Mac, and I know that acrobat on Windows is so big it's almost unusable. Maybe Lee should quit bitching about Apple and get on Adobe's developers to develop higher quality software. As a paying Adobe customer, I would appreciate that immensely.

  • 1997: Adobe wants Apple to pay workstation prices for Display Postscript licenses for the new OS, "Rhapsody", which would have completely priced them out of the market. Apple has to rewrite the graphics layer for Rhapsody/OS X, and it's delayed 2-3 years.

    2010: Payback is a bitch.

  • by mgbastard (612419) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @07:43PM (#31803564)

    Owning the APIs has proven time after time to be where the money is at. Microsoft has written that in stone. If there's one thing Steve Jobs, et. al. have learned, is: don't sit on your ass and let somebody else run away with your golden goose. They let Microsoft run away with it once. So did IBM. Which is why he gets it, the lesson is learned - if you let another platform take over your device, you lose any control over the quality of the experience.

    You go on about 'we're developers we just want to provide a tool'. Do you really trust your non-developer (maybe you forget once upon a time, Jobs wrote software too) executives at Adobe don't get the power they have to mint money with their platform? To open their own open app store? To begin to charge a per-end-user licensing fee for the next version of the flash compiler for the iphone, once its indispensible?

    Let's look at the facts. There's tons and tons of people out there that have some Flash experience and some with actual professional training, and lots without either that can manage to produce something with Flash. Let's call these Flash people "flashies". I'm not comfortable calling them developers, programmers or coders, out of respect to the people that really are. Some very well may be, but if we're going to draw a Venn diagram of Flashies, we all know that's a fairly small percentage of the set that gets to overlap into Software Engineer or Developer. I'm taking the middle road, nothing derogatory.

    So these Flashies are out there; they can pound out some moving pictures and stitch it together to do something. Great. See what's happened in Android? You've got a load of crap out there. Steve doesn't like a load of crap. He's trying to do something different than the load of crap permeating the Microsoft ecosystem.

    Also, I really appreciate your remarks about how open the Adobe culture is, when obivously your boss said, edit that shit on your blog right now, even if you did say, its' my own personal opinion.

    So you are the SWF evangelist. You have drunk the SWF kool-aid. I suppose I might have drunk the Tim Berners-Lee kool-aid. Your platform is not an open standard. Nobody has to give it due respect just because the tools are easy to get started on. Just like some people are visual learners, some are visual Flashies. Cool, y'all seem to have developed a tool to target SWF whether a Flashie is visual, ore more technical. That's neat. You're tools are pretty cool. It would be cooler if you'd open your format up. I know, that would allow competitors an even keel to compete with you on your tools, but hey, that's better for Flashies.

    You aren't just buildling the tools. You are selling a proprietary platform too. So is Apple. A lot of their code is open source, and free software at that. And a lot of it isn't. They are competing against RIM & Microsoft and Google for all the marbles right now. Adobe is on all of their radars now as coming hard after the platform. You don't think the Adobe executives let the Flash team go and spend all that development time on the compiler out of the goodness of their hearts, or because it would be paid for by selling the tools to developers. No, there's a lot more craft in the economics of that business decision.

    Also, you guys could be bought by Microsoft or Google tomorrow or two years from now, and really fuck Apple in the ass. The scenario: lots of great killer apps are running on your SDK for the iPhone, the apple sdk is no longer in the mindshare of developers... then Microsoft or Google, hai, we bought it, dead now. *poof* the app marketplace is disrupted and the platform dies. Your market cap of $20 billion dollars is fuck you money to those guys. Sorry.

    Yeah, when there's this much money involved, and the dynamics are such: it's happened before and it will happen again. All the strategy thinkers at Adobe, Apple, RIM, Google, and Microsoft have learned the lessons from mistakes made by Apple and IBM in launching, and letting platform be marginalized or wrested by a thir

  • no rational defense? (Score:4, Informative)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday April 10, 2010 @08:10PM (#31803734) Homepage Journal

    I can think of one - stability.

    If they dont keep control of development of applications, then it will become a nightmare where they will be blamed for every bad app. To the user, the app is the device, and the device is the app.. they dont know the difference and apple gets the blame.

    So, keeping tight reigns on this helps keep that risk at a minimum.

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...