Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Iphone Software Apple

Apple's Developer Tools Turnaround 'Great News' For Adobe 234

Posted by Soulskill
from the line-must-be-drawn-he-ah dept.
cgriffin21 writes "Apple is being praised for loosening of some of the restrictions in its Application Developer Program license agreement that open the door for app developers to work in Flash for the Apple iPhone, iPad and other devices. And no one is happier about the change than Flash-maker Adobe itself. They wrote, 'This is great news for developers and we're hearing from our developer community that Packager apps are already being approved for the App Store. We do want to point out that Apple's restriction on Flash content running in the browser on iOS devices remains in place.'" Apple also received praise from Google over their reversal, which may have been prompted by an FTC probe. Reader Stoubalou adds that Apple shed more light on the app review process by publishing a list of guidelines (PDF) the violation of which may get an app rejected from the App Store.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple's Developer Tools Turnaround 'Great News' For Adobe

Comments Filter:
  • WiFi (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NetNed (955141) on Friday September 10, 2010 @12:32PM (#33535140)
    Nice that they post the rejection guidelines, but when will they actually follow them? The WiFi finders that disappeared is one. If Apple thinks that is own wifi locating software in iOS is enough to trump all the quality apps that were out there then that means they could do the same for any app even if the app performs better then the so called existing app. The wifi finders found 10x the networks that the network finder in iOS finds, yet this was enough to have apple take the stupid action of eliminating all wifi finders. An example is Wifi-fo-fum which will find 10 networks, tell you the mac, mode, security protocol channel, rssi and rates as opposed to apple's that tell you subnet and ip, with rssi only given in the form of the signal graphic that is about useless when trying to trouble shot signal strength on a wifi network and what might be affecting it.
  • by rsborg (111459) on Friday September 10, 2010 @12:55PM (#33535410) Homepage
    Apple must feel secure enough in it's ecosystem or have felt enough pressure from regulators to make the change, it does seem uncharacteristic of the typical fortress-like mentality bred by previous incursions.

    I think it will be good for everyone involved that the rules are clearer and more app creation tools exist, as long as the approval process is both stringent and non-abusive.

    Also glad that Flash applets are not allowed... those are 90% advertisements, and for those useful non-ad content, I'm happy using my desktop to view them.

  • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:15PM (#33535682)

    >Also glad that Flash applets are not allowed...

    On Android you can set flash to run only when request, just like flashblock on Firefox. So, in other words, you don't need your phone provider to refuse to give you access to flash objects. You can simply not activate them. The difference between the iphone and my EVO is that I can watch embedded video that's not supported natively. They can't. Neither of us is viewing flash ads. Choice is good, not bad.

  • by otakuj462 (1071510) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:20PM (#33535732)

    I saw that with libimobiledevice, it's possible to control your iOS device with your Ubuntu desktop, including doing things like installing apps: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PortableDevices/iPhone [ubuntu.com]

    What I'm wondering is, would it now be possible to develop apps for the iPhone from your GNU/Linux desktop, using a free software stack? What I have in mind is something like this: you write the application in C (a strict subset of Objective C), compile it using GCC (targeting ARM architecture?), using headers obtained from the Apple SDK (I suppose GNUStep wouldn't do), and then use libimobiledevice to deploy it to your phone. I suppose this still lacks some important parts, such as a device emulator which can hook back into a debugger, but still I think it's interesting to think about.

    Is anyone currently pursuing this kind of work?

  • by Late Adopter (1492849) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:57PM (#33536302)
    I think the idea is that Apple is using their market muscle to make Flash less necessary in the first place. If you had to opt-out of flash usage, you might find it more difficult since site makers would have no reason whatsoever to cater to you.

    I don't have an iPhone nor do I want one, but I'm thrilled at the potential effect for iPhones to have on the Flash-heavy web.
  • Re:Coincidental? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Skuld-Chan (302449) on Friday September 10, 2010 @02:06PM (#33536434)

    Read the marketplace comments for Flash - there's plenty of praise for it. While its not perfect - it does work, and it allows you to see a full website where there were holes before.

    On my nexus one - battery life actually got better with 2.2 and Flash installed so I don't think its really a resource hog any more than any other app.

  • by mini me (132455) on Friday September 10, 2010 @02:07PM (#33536468)

    2) Video overlays and compositing.

    Video overlay is up to the browser, but compositing is certainly possible.

    3) Audio

    Support is there. Including the ability to generate audio from code. Which lacking feature do you feel is necessary?

    4) Language with optional typing

    If you are talking about the development of the viewer, Javascript can run anything that LLVM can spit out. That includes Objective-C and even ActionScript in the optionally typed language category.

    If you are talking about the Flash content itself, why wouldn't you be using ActionScript? There is no reason why a Javascript app cannot interpret it.

    You're probably got me on performance, but that does not stop one from implementing said features.

  • Re:WiFi (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dynedain (141758) <slashdot2 AT anthonymclin DOT com> on Friday September 10, 2010 @02:20PM (#33536692) Homepage

    Wasn't private API calls from Office to Windows a big part of what got into trouble w/ anti-trust regulations?

  • Ingenious (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ryan.onsrc (1321531) on Friday September 10, 2010 @02:57PM (#33537216) Homepage

    I actually think supporting the addition of Flash in apps but, now this is key: continuing to not support Flash in Safari -- is actually rather ingenious of Apple.

    First off, Apple was smart to ban Flash from App Store apps, initially. This has allowed Apple to build the thriving eco-system of apps, using their native graphics APIs, that exists today. Now, they have lifted said ban, one might be concerned that this means that suddenly a bunch of slow flash-based apps are going to dominate. But, here is the kicker: in order for a flash-based app to be successful it will have to compete favorably against the hordes of non-flash apps, already out there. Personally, all the apps that I use on a daily basis, aside from having all the features I need, are fast, pleasant to use, and just look nice. All the rest simply sit on my last page of the home screen as they approach their fate of being deleted.

    By lifting the ban, they have effectively said to Adobe: "Fine, you can submit Flash-based apps. But, just watch what happens." My guess is that there maybe only a handful of flash-based apps will make the cut, if that. And by continuing to not support Flash in Safari, Apple continues applying their pressure on web developers to migrate from Flash to HTML5. Of course, this move could potentially back-fire on Apple, should Adobe figure out a way to optimize flash such that it's performance hit would be insignificant. My former prediction is the more likely scenario. And I'd bet real money that this is exactly what the folks in Cupertino are counting on.

    The reality is, the "room" has gotten a bit too hot (with everyone complaining about App Store restrictions, the iPhone 4 Antenna issue, etc.) so Apple made, what I believe to be a very wise decision, to help relieve some of this pressure. It's a calculated risk for sure. But, one that will pay off for them in the end.

  • Re:bad news... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zeroshade (1801584) on Friday September 10, 2010 @03:32PM (#33537734)

    Well, good thing the code is converted to native iPhone code since the iPhone still does not run flash.

    Running an app that has been ported from flash will be no different than running any other native app that runs with a native abstraction library. ie. Will not use any more battery power than a non-flash equivalent app.

  • Re:Eerie (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pkphilip (6861) on Friday September 10, 2010 @05:18PM (#33539110)

    You make it seem like this was a carefully crafted strategy from Apple. But that is simply not the case.

    It just so happened that Steve Jobs thought that everyone would be happy to play in his walled garden while he collected tax. However, with Android coming out with flash..and considering the speed at which android phones are selling, he figured that the best thing to do would be to eat his pride and his words and fix those features that are missing.

    Apple was wrong to have placed all those restrictions on the iphone. This is the Apple way of acknowledging their mistake.

"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA

Working...