Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Iphone Programming Apple

Adobe Stops Development For iPhone 497

adeelarshad82 writes "Adobe's principal product manager Mike Chambers announced that Adobe is no longer investing in iPhone-based Flash development. The move comes after Apple put out a new draft of its iPhone developer program license, which banned private APIs and required apps to be written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine. According to Chambers, Adobe will still provide the ability to target the iPhone and iPad in Flash CS5, but the company is not currently planning any additional investments in that feature." Daring Fireball points out approvingly Apple's rebuttal to the claim that Flash is an open format, however convenient it might be for iPad owners. Related: The new app policy seems to be inconsistently enforced. Reader wilsonthecat writes "Novell have released a new press release in response to Apple's announcement that none-C/C++/Objective-C based iPhone application development breaks their SDK terms. The press release names several apps that have made it past app review process since the new Apple SDK agreement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Stops Development For iPhone

Comments Filter:
  • by InsertWittyNameHere ( 1438813 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:04PM (#31930112)
    "Despite what their Facebook status says, we broke up with Apple first."
    • by jDeepbeep ( 913892 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:37PM (#31930698)

      "Despite what their Facebook status says, we broke up with Apple first."


  • In all seriousness this is the best news I've heard all week. After having put up with Adobe's terrible Flash implementations on the Mac, I'm ecstatic that I won't have to put up with what would have been an even worse iPhone implementation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by alen ( 225700 )

      flash is not speedy on windows either, but the fan starts up on my laptop anytime i access flash content. it's like it's hard coded into the flash client to heat up the CPU and start up the fan

      • I don't understand this - my laptop (2.2 ghz core 2 duo) seems to use around 15% of the cpu watching videos on hulu in HD. At work I tested it with a Dell Optiplex 745 (pizza box style pc) - same thing. Neither machine does the fan speed up or anything.

        Neither of these two machines are all that new - I think the 745 is a 4-5 year old pc.

        • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:4, Informative)

          by MBCook ( 132727 ) <> on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:10PM (#31931364) Homepage

          Get a Macintosh.

          I have a MacBook Pro, 2.4 GHz, 2 GB of RAM. It's 2 years old, and doesn't support GPU help decoding video (it's a GeForce 8600M GT). Someone at my work was questioning why I think Flash is so evil, today I was able to show them. I watched three videos today. Let's compare the experiences.

          1. Video one was an MPEG-4 720p trailer for Super Mario Galaxy 2, played in QuickTime Player. When it ran, both of my cores were at 15-20% usage, playback was perfectly smooth.
          2. Video two was an MPEG-4 video played through an HTML5 demo (first demo on this page []). According to the article, the video is played onto an HTML Canvas, which is then used to draw on another canvas which is displayed. This video, while smaller, took about 10% of one core and 40-50% of another on Safari, with little hit clicking on the video having it explode. The playback was nice and smooth.
          3. Video three was an old video on YouTube. It wasn't very big (maybe 360px high), and used 75-80% of both cores. Playing this causes my laptop to heat up and fans to kick on. It's pathetic.

          Now not all YouTube videos are that bad, for some reason that particular video was just really bad. Many small videos like that will only use 30-50% of both cores. Even smaller videos will have occasional hiccups where it will drop 2 frames. 480p videos will usually use up a good chunk of my CPU (~80%), and 720p videos can drop frames when a lot changes in the scene (like a pan). If I change from Flash to HTML5 video (MPEG4), 720p stuff plays back no problem. OK Go's recent video of a Rube Goldberg machine? My Mac can't play it reliably in Flash at 480p without dropping frames when a lot of action is going on.

          It's not just videos, although that's where I usually run into it. Flash sites with animation just suck down CPU, little games can really heat up my Mac. I think the problem is the way Flash displays things, but that's just a hunch.

          If you know anyone with a Mac (the older the better), go play around with Flash content. It's almost impressive how poorly it performs. Faster and faster Macs help cover it up, but that's no excuse. I'm pretty sure that I could have played Flash content through Parallels at the same or lower CPU usage, but I don't have Parallels installed anymore to test with.

          If Adobe spent any time optimizing Flash on OS X, people wouldn't hate it nearly as much. Apple would still hate it (Steve likes control), but people wouldn't have the "kill it now" attitude.

    • You don't have to run it, you know.

      And those of us with any sense run Flashblock, so we can get Flash when we need it, and pretend it doesn't exist at all other times (though the need for tools like FB is somewhat sad. Why exactly should a plug-in run without my asking it to anyway?)

      • You don't have to run it, you know.

        On the Mac? Sure. On the iPhone however this would ultimately lead to a Flash plugin for Safari, at which point you'd be trapped on the animated, audible, CPU-eating hellhole that is the modern Internet without the ability to use Flashblock/AdBlock.

        • You're saying that the alternative to Uncle Steve banning the Flash plug-in is him installing it on everyone's iPhones and forcing it to be switched on at all times?

          There is a happy medium you know.

          Although if "Uncle Steve" thinks like that and thinks everyone will somehow be forced to run Flash the moment it appears in the app-store, it would explain a lot. Not because it explains his logic for banning it, so much as it re-enforces the idea that the man has gone completely cuckoo.

        • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Informative)

          by tepples ( 727027 ) <> on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:23PM (#31930418) Homepage Journal

          animated, audible, CPU-eating hellhole

          HTML5 authoring tools will bring this to your iPhone.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by idontgno ( 624372 )

          without the ability to use Flashblock/AdBlock.

          No problem, just install Firefox.

          Oh, iPhone? never mind.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I'm having trouble with this... This has nothing repeat NOTHING to do with running Flash on an iPhone/Pad. It has everything to do with Adobe building in the capability to compile an ActionScript project to an iWhatever binary. It is about restricting the tools that developers can use and basically locking them into the Apple ecosystem. If you could use one codeset to write an app for the iPhone/Android/WinMo/WebOS then how is the iPhone special? Now developers have to maintain multiple sets, and from
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by shmlco ( 594907 )

        "If you could use one codeset to write an app for the iPhone/Android/WinMo/WebOS then how is the iPhone special?"

        Precisely. It would have the same, boring, least-common-denominator apps as everything else. Further, Apple must now wait for Adobe to integrate changes into Flash to support new features and new hardware, assuming that Adobe ever gets around to doing so at all. And if the iPhone has new capabilities and the rest of the phones on the market do not, do you think Adobe is going to code them in just

  • Hilarity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jaysyn ( 203771 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:06PM (#31930154) Homepage Journal

    It would be very funny if Adobe, just for spite, decided to stop making it's high end graphic design products compatible with Apple hardware. And figured out a way to make them not work via virtualization on Apple hardware as well.

    I know, I know, they are publicly traded & would never cut off that revenue stream.

    • Re:Hilarity (Score:5, Funny)

      by dunezone ( 899268 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:30PM (#31930546) Journal
      Never would happen, but that doesn't stop them from putting extra CPU intensive Loops in the Apple builds of the software.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It would be very funny if Adobe, just for spite, decided to stop making it's high end graphic design products compatible with Apple hardware. And figured out a way to make them not work via virtualization on Apple hardware as well.

      It would probably work about as well as MS deciding not to develop IE for the Mac any more or Adobe's earlier decision to skip development of Premiere for the Mac. Apple would just buy some company and put out their own version that would not only work but work the way they wanted

  • I hope (Score:2, Funny)

    by expert464 ( 1639331 )
    I hope Apple is starting to develop their own image editing software.... ..just sayin'
  • by Beelzebud ( 1361137 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:09PM (#31930196)
    Seeing one closed off, 'play by our rules or gtfo' company, whining about another closed off 'play by our rules or gtfo' company is golden.
    • Seeing one closed off, 'play by our rules or gtfo' company, whining about another closed off 'play by our rules or gtfo' company is golden.

      Right, and my personal take is that they both offer very seksi very clean UIs and user experiences. It's probably a pissing match between two companies that are concerned about the being the one who controls the de facto look and feel. Because when you're in control of that situation, you're situated to make a handsome profit. And when you have a proprietary product under the well executed marketing guise of being open then you get to decide who lives and who dies on your platform.

    • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      Okay, I'll bite. In what way is Adobe a "play by our rules or gtfo" company?

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:09PM (#31930204)
    They must be banished from the compound and no believer may ever speak with them again.
    • by Yahma ( 1004476 )

      They must be banished from the compound and no believer may ever speak with them again.

      Father Steve, you have spoken your wish. We shall obey..

  • Android... (Score:3, Funny)

    by the_one_wesp ( 1785252 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:15PM (#31930280)

    Adobe is instead focusing on other platforms, namely Android. Chambers said he will personally shift "all of my mobile focus" from the iPhone to Android, and that he has a particular interest in Android-based tablets.

    Guess that means we'll be seeing more flash based porn apps []?

  • Found here [] - namely 4 apps have made it through the app review process that signed the 3.1.3 clause.
  • Is there some deep, personal clash going on here? Did Narayen steal Jobs' girlfriend back in college? I can't help but think that enabling Flash on the iPad would only help both Apple and Adobe. I wonder how much business Apple is losing simply because of this lack of integration? (Nevermind no-multi-tasking or no camera or no wide-screen). Why give people one more reason not to buy i?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by robus ( 852325 )

      I don't think so. I think Apple (and Steve Jobs) are ruthless about killing what they see as legacy tech. And they're pissed at Adobe for dragging their heels in adopting the new Cocoa APIs for UI development.

      I think Apple (rightly or wrongly) have decided their mission is to drag the tech world kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

      • Re:Something deeper (Score:4, Informative)

        by feepness ( 543479 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:35PM (#31930652) Homepage

        I think Apple (rightly or wrongly) have decided their mission is to drag the tech world kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

        ...kicking and screaming into their dedicated storefront you mean.

        This has nothing to do with whether the iPad runs on fusion and unicorn farts or coal fired steam engines. It's about making sure people can't develop any apps or consume any content that will compete with what you can buy in the App store.

        • If that is the case I'm surprised Apple hasn't noticed that every iPod and iPhone seems to have this 'Safari' app on it. Connects to this "internet" thing that you can interact with.

          • If that is the case I'm surprised Apple hasn't noticed that every iPod and iPhone seems to have this 'Safari' app on it. Connects to this "internet" thing that you can interact with.

            And play Flash games or watch Flash videos?

            The internet does not compete with the App Store. Flash does.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Duradin ( 1261418 )

              Where were iPhone users supposed to get their apps before the app store? Would it happen to be the internet via Safari? Yes, yes it was. What can you still find on the internet with Safari? Websites that behave like apps. Does Apple control these web apps? No, no they don't.

              "It's about making sure people can't develop any apps or consume any content that will compete with what you can buy in the App store." So your assertion is a bit off since there does exist some 'apps' and content that compete with the a

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by peragrin ( 659227 )

      well to start with Adobe would have to make a special version of flash for the ipad. Since Adobe generally treats anything but the windows version with scorn coming later, and with less features devoting time to keep flash updated on all platforms with reasonable speed requires more developers than adobe is willing to work with.

      if Apple decides to do a processor change under the hood. native apps will port quickly but flash would take a year or so before it becomes ready.

      Given by year end apple will have

      • Re:Something deeper (Score:5, Informative)

        by _Swank ( 118097 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:48PM (#31930918)

        All your points relate to a completely different issue than what this article is actually about (don't worry, it looks like 99% of the 'techies' posting to this article fail to understand what Adobe actually announced related to Flash and the iPhone).



        Adobe released a feature that allows you to export an app created in Flash CS5 (not the Flash Player client) as a native iPhone app. This meant you could export an iPhone app that includes ZERO bits of Flash that could then be submitted to Apple's AppStore and appears like every other app.

        What Apple said in the their license is, essentially, you must not use 3rd party tools to create native iPhone Apps. XCode and Objective-C are your options.

        What Adobe said is that they will no longer work on the above feature for the Apple devices. But will work on it for other devices.

        So if you want to create an app that targets the web, the desktop, Android, iPhone, etc. You will be able to target all these platforms with a single code base -- except the iPhone...that you will have to write separately in Objective-C as a completely different code base. Because of Apple's whims.

        Note that, according to the license, this also applies to all other non-Apple tools that can be used to cross-compile to a native iPhone app.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rsborg ( 111459 )

      Is there some deep, personal clash going on here?

      I'd say, yes, it is personal, but here's the backstory []. Here's the lede:

      In 1996 when Apple was seemingly on the ropes, Adobe made a crucial business decision and one that is coming back to bite them in the ass. They declared that their primary development platform would be Windows; subsequently, every new application or major revision of a product was introduced for Windows first and followed months later, sometimes never at all, by a Mac version.


    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bogtha ( 906264 )

      You're evaluating the situation in relation to short-term sales to end-users, not in relation to the value as a platform. Consider this: one of the biggest disadvantages Apple face is that the vast majority of apps are developed for Windows, not the Mac; and the vast majority of developers are familiar with developing for Windows, not the Mac. Now consider this: the App Store is a huge draw for developers. If developers could build apps for it with Flash, they would just be Flash developers. Instead, t

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ADRA ( 37398 )

      If anyone's going to be developing for a locked in closed platform then Apple would rather have it their own instead of Adobe's. If its a matter of developer mind share, Apple wants more people using their crappy incompatible platform because then people are 'stuck' on Apple hardware.

      Phase 2 -- Support 'iPhoneOS' apps on Mac's
      Phase 3 -- Drop OSX API support for Mac's
      Phase 4 -- Drop iTunes support for Windows and prosecute any and everyone who attempts to
      Phase 5 -- Own the home PC market

  • If you make a product that competes with an existing or future Apple product, it will probably not be allowed to run on the iPhone. Most iPhone apps could run as Flash apps, which would cost Apple revenue, and that would delay construction of Steve's interstellar spacecraft (the only rational reason you need $100 billion vs $1 billion, in my mind, is if you intend to leave the planet; if you do anything else with it you're just an asshole).

    I don't see why people are surprised at this. Just stay out of Ste
  • This whole Adobe-Apple thing was conflicting for me for a while: do I cheer Apple on for killing Adobe's standards-busting, lousy-performance (very, very lousy performance) closed-source plugins, or despise them for their policy of locking down their devices (of which Adobe was just one of several innocent bystanders).

    At the end of the day, I've decided to give my grudging approval to what Apple is doing: at least by forcing people into HTML5, they're encouraging the adoption of a fully standards-based i
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      by forcing people into HTML5,

      This has nothing to do with HTML5. This is about Adobe compiling Flash to objective-C.

    • by mario_grgic ( 515333 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:33PM (#31930612)

      Except it seems Apple won't be happy until they kill the notion of "general purpose computer" for the masses and each computing "device" sold to the public is a locked down single purpose appliance designed for the consumption of content, all preferably sold by Apple.

      I as someone who makes a living from developing software and who generally loves tinkering with computers hate that vision and can not support Apple moving close to it.

    • Html-5 is really a convenient scapegoat - if it wasn't that it would be something else, and its not battery life or stability - I think more than one person has put down that myth. The reality is developing applications on html-5 is tricky business still because its still in development, but I'm sure it will get much easier once developer tools arrive and standards are more firmly set.

      The reality here is that Flash, like Java would create an end run around the app-store immediately (and their revenue sharin

  • by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <> on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:20PM (#31930368) Homepage Journal

    What would it take to get Adobe to quit infecting all platforms with their overhyped junk? Yes, yes, people love Photoshop. Just imagine that app, though, rewritten with a modern GUI toolkit and brand new underpinnings so that it wasn't a steaming pile. Now realize that it'll never happen because Apple fanboys have nothing on Adobe advocates and Adobe has no reason to spend development money making it better instead of adding shiny new features. (BTW, I'm not a Gimp fan, either - it's fully possible to dislike both apps on their own demerits.)

    While I'm not a huge fan of Jobs, I sincerely thank him for driving a stake into Flash's corrupted heart. Would that the rest of Adobe's hoggish wares die with it.

  • Anyone else think it's hilarious how John Gruber is pouting about Gizmodo and the iPhone 4 leak? It's like he's a six-year-old who was just told by a drunk uncle that Santa and the Tooth Fairy are actually just his parents. "I want my sense of childlike wonder back! **waaaaaaaah!**

    • I laughed at his comment that Apple's claim that flash was closed and proprietary was 'spot on.' It's proprietary, but as you can download the specification for free and implement it I don't think closed is quite the right word.
  • It would seem that every time I read an Apple story, it is about Apple fighting with someone to keep their eco-system pure or some sanctimonious blathering about what people want. Down the slashdot page there is a story about the iPhone and porn, or how they will keep your kids pure by withholding porn from the device. Okay... I get it, Apple products are closed entertainment devices. Not PC's (Apple's branding says so)... Fine, no flash, no firefox, no, no, no... Got it... will not buy an Apple product.
  • This is ominous to the iPhone user. Next I expect to hear that ActiveX and Real will be booted from the iPhone, and then we'll never get anything done. The iPhone simply doesn't support ALL of the web.

    And it doesn't stop there. I bet that MS-Office macros will be considered a programming language, and then will be booted off ot the Mac!

    This is the END! I'm tired of these control games.

  • by mcwop ( 31034 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:24PM (#31930430) Homepage
    This whole battle still has me scratching my head, with all the different theories. My main question is why Adobe has been so late to create a true mobile player that supports touch for newer mobile devices - the ones that actually can access the internet easily. A player that optimizes battery life, and resources. I know version 10.1 is supposed to be this, but I can't really tell if it will deliver. 10.1 also seems to be 1+ years behind schedule. Adobe is the one that owns the player and that onus is on them. Of course, current flash sites cannot be made to work well on any touchscreen device, and this cannot be solved by Apple nor Adobe. I think the latter is a major issue, especially when Jobs wants user experience as a priority.

    Of course, Apple could just be trying to do away with it, hoping HTML 5 takes more hold.

  • Direct quote from Mike Chambers: "Because this is Flash, it is rather trivial to port games created with Flash that target the iPhone to target other operating systems, such as Android."

    Which pretty much sums up the entire reason for 3.3.1. Did they seriously expect that, going in with this offering, they'd get no pushback from Apple? It's been abundantly clear from day one that the iPhone store is a closed platform, subject to the business ideals of Apple (i.e. make Apple more money). Any sane iPhone devel

  • To quote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jvillain ( 546827 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:32PM (#31930598)

    When your enemies are fighting. Don't interrupt them.

  • Seriously, "no longer investing in iPhone-based Flash development" is not even close to the same thing as "Adobe Stops Development For iPhone."

  • If Microsoft tried to pull this off, lawyers would be tripping over each other to be the first to file an antitrust lawsuit,along with adobe and the slashdot community be up in arms. I really don't understand that because apple is anything but an open company and very much controlling. Is it just because they use open source as there OS that makes whatever they do OK here at slashdot?? To me whatever is wrong is wrong no matter who does it.
  • by dave562 ( 969951 )

    It is really interesting to see Adobe and Apple not getting along. For as long as I can remember the primary users of Apple hardware were "creative professionals". All of those users were using Apple because of Photoshop and the various other Adobe tools. Even when Adobe put their tools out for Windows, 99% of the creative professionals preferred to continue using them on Apple hardware. In much the same way that people claim, "I have a Windows box to play games on.", others would claim, "I have a Mac t

    • by je ne sais quoi ( 987177 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:11PM (#31931392)

      Now that Apple has had some success outside of their previously small, niche market, they seem to be taking a big crap on one of their largest supporters. It is an interesting example of power dynamics in the real world. Apple apparently doesn't lend much weight to their long term relationship, or what Adobe has done for them in the past. It seems to be all about Apple saying, "What have you done for me lately?"

      It's because Adobe really hasn't done much for Apple lately. I might be out of the loop because I use gimp for mac [] full time now, but as far as I know Adobe never actually ported Photoshop to become a cocoa app. This [] is another bad problem: no 64 bit for macs, only windows. And that's been the Mac user's cross to bear for a long time now, companies like Adobe (or Bungie) that used to focus on the mac platform have made the calculation that when one OS manufacturer owns 90% of the market (MS), even if all of the remaining people buy their products, it's still only 10% of the total base and more sales could be had by focusing on the monopoly OS. In the past Apple had to bend over and take it. Now they don't. As a guy who started using macs in 1997, all I have to say is: Revenge is sweet. I hate flash anyway, slow as molasses.

  • by rxan ( 1424721 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @04:54PM (#31931034)

    The only reason Apple is doing this is to keep its store's apps, music, and video selling. If there was Flash, everybody would just play Flash games and stream Flash music and video -- just like they do on PCs.

    But even after all of this grief it will mean nothing. Once web technologies evolve the web will be a foundation for apps, music, and video. Just like with Flash today but under a different name. Apple's store will just be a steaming pile. And for what? A few years of having your customers locked into your content?

    The only result is slowing down innovation of the web. Unless you call moving to an open technology with none of the features 'innovation'. Nice job Apple.

    It wouldn't be a problem if Apple developed an open technology to replace Flash. But they wouldn't do that because it would kill their store.

    • by je ne sais quoi ( 987177 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @05:29PM (#31931664)
      Really? REALLY?! You're trying to tell me that flash is innovation on the web?! FLASH!?! Are you high? Your comment is entirely devoid of any reason and sanity. Do you know who developed webkit []? It was Apple, they forked konqueror. Now webkit runs half the browsers out there. Safari, which also runs on webkit, is, in their words []:

      The first browser to support HTML5 audio and video tags, Safari helps developers create media-rich sites that don't require additional plug-ins.

      From where I sit, html5 is the innovation and the future of the web here, flash is holding innovation up because it's being forced to do things it was never designed to do. Apple is pushing the world forward by releasing us fro relying on a plugin that relies on a single manufacturer, i.e., Adobe.

      • Really? REALLY?! You're trying to tell me that flash is innovation on the web

        Flash is where most of the content is on the web. Like it or not, you have to deal with that. Apple is not going to force all the existing content into HTML 5 so kindly stop with the incoherent fanboy ranting. Content is far more important then innovation, I can list a dozen innovations that went nowhere because they were too incompatible.

        and clean the froth off your keyboard.

        The GP is 100% right, as soon as flash is availa

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.