PDA

View Full Version : Adobe Updates Flash Builder and Flex to Support Building iOS Applications




MacRumors
Jun 20, 2011, 08:26 AM
http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/adobe-updates-flash-builder-and-flex-to-support-building-ios-applications/)


Adobe today announced (http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20110619005121/en/Adobe/AIR/Android) the release of Flash Builder 4.5 and Flex 4.5, new versions of the company's rich application development tools that now support cross-platform mobile app development for iOS, BlackBerry, and Android.Developers now have a single platform for building highly expressive mobile applications that can be distributed via the Android Market, Apple App Store and BlackBerry App World. Offered standalone or as part of Creative Suite 5.5 Web Premium and Master Collection, Flash Builder 4.5 enables the creation of applications that work seamlessly across leading mobile device platforms.

"The reaction from developers to the new mobile capabilities in Flash Builder 4.5 and the Flex 4.5 framework has been absolutely fantastic," said Ed Rowe, vice president of developer tooling, Adobe. "They are amazed by how easy it is to create great mobile apps for Android devices, BlackBerry PlayBook, iPhone and iPad. Companies can now effectively reach their customers no matter what type of device they have."Adobe has also issued a blog post (http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2011/06/build-mobile-apps-for-android-devices-blackberry-playbook-iphone-and-ipad-today.html) discussing the update and highlighting some of the applications recently built with the new tools.

Flash Builder 4.5 is available a standalone purchase in both Standard ($249) and Premium ($699) versions, with the Premium version also being included in Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 Web Premium and Master Collection bundles. Flex 4.5 is a free, open-source framework.

Article Link: Adobe Updates Flash Builder and Flex to Support Building iOS Applications (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/adobe-updates-flash-builder-and-flex-to-support-building-ios-applications/)



soco
Jun 20, 2011, 08:28 AM
Oh Flash, how I miss you.

Definitely kidding, but I suppose it's good to see progress being made in some weird fashion.

kiljoy616
Jun 20, 2011, 08:32 AM
So he is on an Apple laptop with a nice iron man and android sticker to hide the Apple logo. :rolleyes:

MSlaw
Jun 20, 2011, 08:41 AM
If it works, it works, if it doesn't, apps that use it will get drowned out by bad reviews. The customer gets to decide now.

kerryb
Jun 20, 2011, 08:48 AM
If it works, it works, if it doesn't, apps that use it will get drowned out by bad reviews. The customer gets to decide now.

Millions of iPad buyers have already decided.

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 20, 2011, 08:48 AM
Quite sad to see Adobe use a MacBook Pro covered with a Android logo.. although it looks quite cool, still kinda seems petty... :D

I'll break this down.

Quite sad to see Adobe use a MacBook Pro covered with a Android logo..
although it looks quite cool,
still kinda seems petty...

Even the first order predicate logic and rules of inference fail to prove the conclusion. lol

cvaldes
Jun 20, 2011, 08:50 AM
Millions of iPad buyers have already decided.
As well as over a hundred million iPhone and iPod touch users.

BigJayhawk
Jun 20, 2011, 08:52 AM
If it's "cross-platform" then that means NONE of the UNIQUE FEATURES of iOS will be usable in these conversions. Otherwise, the conversion would not work on Android and Blackberry.

Hence, Apple's argument the first time. Apps wll be "ordinary" leading users to feel that it is iOS that is simply "ordinary."

There ought to be a disclaimer for these Apps.

CQd44
Jun 20, 2011, 08:55 AM
If it's "cross-platform" then that means NONE of the UNIQUE FEATURES of iOS will be usable in these conversions. Otherwise, the conversion would not work on Android and Blackberry.

Hence, Apple's argument the first time. Apps wll be "ordinary" leading users to feel that it is iOS that is simply "ordinary."

There ought to be a disclaimer for these Apps.

what unique features?

zim
Jun 20, 2011, 08:55 AM
I am curious as to how developers truly view Flash as a development tool for iOS devices. I had a chance to consult on a project and found that the developers were nothing but frustrated with Flash.. the designers, on the other hand liked it because they (thought) they knew what they were doing... yet they brought in developers as well as me because they couldn't get the project off the ground... :rolleyes:

BillyBobBongo
Jun 20, 2011, 08:56 AM
Millions of iPad buyers have already decided.

As well as over a hundred million iPhone and iPod touch users.

This isn't a discussion about the Flash plugin, it's a discussion about Flash Builder.

.11
Jun 20, 2011, 09:02 AM
I am curious as to how developers truly view Flash as a development tool for iOS devices. I had a chance to consult on a project and found that the developers were nothing but frustrated with Flash.. the designers, on the other hand liked it because they (thought) they knew what they were doing... yet they brought in developers as well as me because they couldn't get the project off the ground... :rolleyes:

Frustrated because what?

I've developed in AS3, and I had no issues.

Dagless
Jun 20, 2011, 09:04 AM
This isn't a discussion about the Flash plugin, it's a discussion about Flash Builder.

You think they know the difference?

macnisse
Jun 20, 2011, 09:05 AM
Yeah, kinda funny with the giant sticker on the MBP and that he didn't demo on the iPhone, just on the iPad and iPod... seemed to work pretty good an all machines though (prehaps they edited the sound not to hear the fans on the MBP go bezerk at +6000rpm ;)

UTclassof89
Jun 20, 2011, 09:06 AM
Millions of iPad buyers have already decided.

As well as over a hundred million iPhone and iPod touch users.

What, exactly, did millions of us decide about which compiler devs use to bring us apps??

This isn't a discussion about the Flash plugin, it's a discussion about Flash Builder.

They don't care; they hear "Flash " and instantly froth at the mouth.

ale500
Jun 20, 2011, 09:07 AM
That is one of the features that makes writting Flash applications worth, at least for me. It works across platforms (when it does) quite well, the rest (for forms and similar uses) HTML5 may be a better option.

ssk2
Jun 20, 2011, 09:13 AM
If it's "cross-platform" then that means NONE of the UNIQUE FEATURES of iOS will be usable in these conversions. Otherwise, the conversion would not work on Android and Blackberry.

Hence, Apple's argument the first time. Apps wll be "ordinary" leading users to feel that it is iOS that is simply "ordinary."

There ought to be a disclaimer for these Apps.

Are you one of those people that think iOS is somehow 'magical' and anything other than an operating system for a mobile platform?

"Apps will be ordinary"... Give me a break. Also, unique features? Eh?

*LTD*
Jun 20, 2011, 09:16 AM
Who cares. LOL that Adobe is still peddling this junk. And for hundreds of dollars.

iSee
Jun 20, 2011, 09:20 AM
People sure get worked up whenever Flash is mentioned.

As a developer believe me when I point out:

* Developers don't care about the Flash debate directly one bit. It's about using tools that meet the needs of the project. All platforms, SDKs, IDEs, etc., have their advantages and disadvantages. It's hard enough to choose the best tools for the job, balancing short and long term requirements without thowing a lot of emontion into the decision. Flash is amost unbeatable in some areas, useless in others and somewhere in between in most. I won't even comment on Flex directly because I haven't used it.

* There are tons of misinformation in this area thrown about.

* The ability to develop apps using Flash will not reduce the quality of apps in the app store. Flash makes some things easy but releasing an app requires a lot of different skills. Flash only makes a few of them so easy "anybody" could do it. You're still going to need developer skills to release apps. There are tons of crap now and a small percentage of good to great apps. That's not going to change.

Winni
Jun 20, 2011, 09:27 AM
If it's "cross-platform" then that means NONE of the UNIQUE FEATURES of iOS will be usable in these conversions. Otherwise, the conversion would not work on Android and Blackberry.

Hence, Apple's argument the first time. Apps wll be "ordinary" leading users to feel that it is iOS that is simply "ordinary."

There ought to be a disclaimer for these Apps.


Have a look at this and tell me what's ordinary about it:

http://machinarium.net

That game is made with Flash, it runs on OS X (and can even be purchased in the Mac AppStore), Linux and Windows and if Steve Jobs would listen to reason, stuff like this could also run just as easily on your fancy little iGadgets. At least now, thanks to Adobe and not thanks to Apple, there is a way for developers and designers to also port their great work to your crippled iPads and iPhones.

By the way, Flash 10.3 runs extraordinarily well on the Samsung Galaxy S2. I don't know why His Steveness is brainwashing everybody to believe that Flash performs poorly on phones. But then again, the S2 runs with an OS that was NOT designed to restrict its users and it also has a fully featured web browser.

eugo
Jun 20, 2011, 09:35 AM
im a bit confused... is flash supported on iOS???

NAG
Jun 20, 2011, 09:41 AM
im a bit confused... is flash supported on iOS???

In the web browser, no. Apple was banning third party development tools but they gave in because they ended up hitting too many developers. This is similar to the game engine Unity, if you want an example.

I'm just hoping this won't be a complete mess like Adobe's publishing tools where you download 500 mb pictures instead of text. Might as well just scan the printed magazine while they're at it.

Bear
Jun 20, 2011, 09:48 AM
...
By the way, Flash 10.3 runs extraordinarily well on the Samsung Galaxy S2. I don't know why His Steveness is brainwashing everybody to believe that Flash performs poorly on phones. But then again, the S2 runs with an OS that was NOT designed to restrict its users and it also has a fully featured web browser.Probably because the OS X implementation of Flash was terrible. And if Adobe wasn't going to fix issues on that, who could say how well they would do an iOS version of Flash? So it's great that Adobe actually did a good version for something. However, Apple made its decision based on the support and performance Flash had on OS X. I also believe Apple examined Flash on other platforms and found issues as well.

Flash may be a great product, but to me it's worth is tarnished because people used flash for everything on websites that simple html could've done. Every tool has its uses. And every tool has its abuses. Flash was abused and bloated websites that had no reason to use Flash at all.

NAG
Jun 20, 2011, 09:53 AM
But how else can I have my restaurant's wine list take 2 minutes to load while you listen to elevator music?

Jon the Heretic
Jun 20, 2011, 09:55 AM
By the way, Flash 10.3 runs extraordinarily well on the Samsung Galaxy S2. I don't know why His Steveness is brainwashing everybody to believe that Flash performs poorly on phones.

Sounds like Adobe has spared no expense to make 10.3 suck less. "His Steveness" has no incentive to wait several major releases out for Adobe to 'get it right'. I will say that on XP, I see my browser complain regularly about the Flash plugin crashing. I for one can't wait to enjoy that experience on my iPad 2.

I will say that Flash on my Tivo Premiere is dog slow. I am sure this embedded form of Flash isn't yet synced up with the improvements that came with 10.3, but given how much coffee I've been able to brew while enjoying Tivo's glorious HDUI written in Flash, I can hardly fault anyone having naughty thoughts about Flash running on a PHONE when I could launch my own Starbuck's franchise with all of the wait states generated by my Flash-based DVR.

Oh yeah, Tivo says they can't enable that second core either thanks to the fine engineering of Flash on Linux. Wish Tivo's execs had some of His Steveness' caution before basing their entire new Series 4 UI architecture on Flash technology. It's not been good.

vladi
Jun 20, 2011, 09:57 AM
Millions of iPad buyers have already decided.

No they didn't they just took what they were given. Consumers are not creative enough to be in a position to decide anyting, that why they need both Steves to tell them "what's good for them". Sad.

UTclassof89
Jun 20, 2011, 09:58 AM
But how else can I have my restaurant's wine list take 2 minutes to load while you listen to elevator music?

with poorly coded HTML 4

or

with poorly coded HTML 5

or

with poorly coded Silverlight

etc.

(don't confuse bad programming with bad technology)

ale500
Jun 20, 2011, 09:58 AM
I don't know why His Steveness is brainwashing everybody to believe that Flash performs poorly on phones.

Please, he is called His Jobness :p

jclardy
Jun 20, 2011, 09:58 AM
I have used 4.5 beta, but haven't actually deployed to any iOS devices. I used it in the development of an app for the Blackberry Playbook.

The technology is great for developers that need an app to run on basically everything, as you can share your entire codebase with iOS/Android/BB and can even run it on the desktop, although you will have to create a separate interface as the mobile controls don't work well on the desktop.

It is great for subscription services that want to get on as many devices as possible as they no longer have to recode everything for the separate platforms. Of course you can already do this with web technologies like in the Netflix app which basically is just a web view.

The ultimate issue with tools like this is that you won't get awesome, custom tailored interfaces specific to your device like TweetBot. It can be done, but when you are designing pixel perfect interfaces it kind of defeats the purpose of being able to run on every device.

I don't really expect a lot of games to come from it as the performance was not that great. Ok for list based information apps like their stock app, but for anything more than a point-and-click adventure you will want native code.


Still nice to have new tools available, and to the end user as long as the app works well they won't really care whether it was written in Action Script or Objective-C.

deadkennedy
Jun 20, 2011, 10:05 AM
Funny, the only thing that stands between Adobe and total glory is the performance aspect of their VM, or as they call it AVM. But still they just can't get that right no matter what they do. There are many other VM's out there, including JVM, that kick ass.

I totally like Adobe idea of programmable, interactive movies with great vector support, but they just can't nail down the performance.

iCrizzo
Jun 20, 2011, 10:12 AM
Can't view the video on my iPad. :eek:

Kwill
Jun 20, 2011, 10:22 AM
That's fantastic. I always wanted to build a "Hello World" iOS app. How much is this Flash Builder again? :rolleyes:

ranReloaded
Jun 20, 2011, 10:39 AM
People sure get worked up whenever Flash is mentioned.

As a developer believe me when I point out:

* Developers don't care about the Flash debate directly one bit. It's about using tools that meet the needs of the project. All platforms, SDKs, IDEs, etc., have their advantages and disadvantages. It's hard enough to choose the best tools for the job, balancing short and long term requirements without thowing a lot of emontion into the decision. Flash is amost unbeatable in some areas, useless in others and somewhere in between in most. I won't even comment on Flex directly because I haven't used it.

* There are tons of misinformation in this area thrown about.

* The ability to develop apps using Flash will not reduce the quality of apps in the app store. Flash makes some things easy but releasing an app requires a lot of different skills. Flash only makes a few of them so easy "anybody" could do it. You're still going to need developer skills to release apps. There are tons of crap now and a small percentage of good to great apps. That's not going to change.

The problem is arises when script kiddies/web designers get the idea that they too can be app developers thanks to the magical WYSIWYG Adobe products... And I'm sure Adobe isn't too eager to set the score straight in that respect.

PatrickCocoa
Jun 20, 2011, 10:40 AM
Have a look at this and tell me what's ordinary about it:

http://machinarium.net

That game is made with Flash, it runs on OS X (and can even be purchased in the Mac AppStore), Linux and Windows and if Steve Jobs would listen to reason, stuff like this could also run just as easily on your fancy little iGadgets. At least now, thanks to Adobe and not thanks to Apple, there is a way for developers and designers to also port their great work to your crippled iPads and iPhones.

By the way, Flash 10.3 runs extraordinarily well on the Samsung Galaxy S2. I don't know why His Steveness is brainwashing everybody to believe that Flash performs poorly on phones. But then again, the S2 runs with an OS that was NOT designed to restrict its users and it also has a fully featured web browser.

I agree with you, and I fully support your method of argument. I, also, find that interspersing random comments with snide little jabs is an effective way to persuade others to my point of view. Some people's contribution to this forum is mainly a masturbatory I'm-better-than-you-because-I-have-clarity-of-vision-and-you-don't.

But you and I know that it's important to consider others' arguments and engage in a rational discussion.

Before I read your post, about 10 minutes ago, I was a full fledged Apple acolyte. But then I read "listen to reason" and "fancy little iGadgets". I shivered with the realization that I may be wrong. Stumbling on to "crippled iPads" and "His Steveness" was like climbing a mountain of truth. When I reached "brainwashing" and "fully featured web browser" I simultaneously cried and threw away my iPad, iPod Touch, and iMac.

newagemac
Jun 20, 2011, 10:46 AM
what unique features?

The APIs specific to the OS that the developers use. Apple adds hundreds of them every update. Adobe Adobe won't be able to make their tools work consistent across every platform because many APIs are unique to specific platforms and so developers will have to make shortcuts and cut back on use of certain APIs and advanced features that don't exist on other platforms or are hard to represent across each one.

This is the problem with all cross platform solutions. That's why iTunes doesn't work as well on Windows compared to Mac and why Microsoft Office on Mac suffers compared to Microsoft Office on Windows. The OS is different and so coding the same features on different OSs is far more difficult than you probably realize. If these large companies have problems with this, how well do you think Adobe and small developers are going to be able to cope?

ranReloaded
Jun 20, 2011, 10:48 AM
Flash is like an after-though house built in a park, around a pre-existing public toilet. And every year you add a new room.

I'll take a platform that was thought out as a whole, big picture-scale, from the drawing board, any day.

But then again, I only coded games in C on a machine with 512 MB RAM.

winston1236
Jun 20, 2011, 10:50 AM
oh flash, how great its is to hear about your continuation, what would i do without hearing my mac heat up to 175 degrees to display a banner ad

nagromme
Jun 20, 2011, 10:51 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I'll judge each app on it's usability, interface quality, performance, and battery life.

Which is to say, it will be fine for (some) games. Not for conventional apps, which need native controls.

ranReloaded
Jun 20, 2011, 10:53 AM
what unique features?

Accelerate Framework. APNS. In App Purchases. Gyroscope...

Don't tell me every android phone has equivalents and the Flash IDE magically choses the right one at run time.

iSee
Jun 20, 2011, 10:59 AM
The problem is arises when script kiddies/web designers get the idea that they too can be app developers thanks to the magical WYSIWYG Adobe products... And I'm sure Adobe isn't too eager to set the score straight in that respect.

I really think there will be no problem. Mainly because various iOS app engines have been around for years so this changes nothing. I'm not saying there won't be crappy Flash apps developed by people who should not be developing apps. There will be. But it won't be at any greater rate than crappy apps were developed previously. LOL, a while ago a non-developer friend of mine wanted to get in on developing iOS apps. He knew some HTML and Javascript so his idea was to develop it using those and wrap it in a web control to make it "native". I agreed to help him with the wrapper if he could get the basic features of his app running in Safari. Needless to say, he was never able to take me up on that.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 20, 2011, 11:06 AM
I think the well deserved criticism of Adobe has made them start to improve their products.

The other day my computer fan was running non-stop and activity viewer showed it to be some adobe app using a very large percent of the CPU.

I found the offensive file in the system library. It was a "self repairing" feature of Adobe's and there were two versions. The older version was the culprit. I don't know how I got an older version of the file there.

In the process of trying to find the file, I came across this insane discussion about it on the Adobe help forum. People were upset because they couldn't disable this problem file. The self repair feature would restore it. The Adobe rep on the forum couldn't understand why people were upset about the posted procedure that involved using the terminal to edit the code in the file. The people on the thread felt this should be much easier to turn off from the preferences. The Adobe rep kept pointing to the posted terminal fix with this arrogant attitude. All his responses suggested he was asking "what is the big deal?"

Anyway that was an old forum. The new file doesn't seem to have this problem and I believe Adobe must have eventually made it easier now to remove as simply deleting the file was enough.

Its no wonder Flash was not allowed on iOS as it was a resource hog. It looks like Apple's scrutiny is making Adobe better.

The better web designers include non-Flash sites anyway. It is poor etiquette not too.

ranReloaded
Jun 20, 2011, 11:11 AM
I really think there will be no problem. Mainly because various iOS app engines have been around for years so this changes nothing. I'm not saying there won't be crappy Flash apps developed by people who should not be developing apps. There will be. But it won't be at any greater rate than crappy apps were developed previously. LOL, a while ago a non-developer friend of mine wanted to get in on developing iOS apps. He knew some HTML and Javascript so his idea was to develop it using those and wrap it in a web control to make it "native". I agreed to help him with the wrapper if he could get the basic features of his app running in Safari. Needless to say, he was never able to take me up on that.

You may be right regarding Unity and Flex, but the whole point of exporting iOS apps from the Flash Professional IDE is so that non-devs can draw their timeline-based sprite animations on the GUI.

crees!
Jun 20, 2011, 11:20 AM
Sounds like Adobe has spared no expense to make 10.3 suck less. "His Steveness" has no incentive to wait several major releases out for Adobe to 'get it right'. I will say that on XP, I see my browser complain regularly about the Flash plugin crashing. I for one can't wait to enjoy that experience on my iPad 2.

I will say that Flash on my Tivo Premiere is dog slow. I am sure this embedded form of Flash isn't yet synced up with the improvements that came with 10.3, but given how much coffee I've been able to brew while enjoying Tivo's glorious HDUI written in Flash, I can hardly fault anyone having naughty thoughts about Flash running on a PHONE when I could launch my own Starbuck's franchise with all of the wait states generated by my Flash-based DVR.

Oh yeah, Tivo says they can't enable that second core either thanks to the fine engineering of Flash on Linux. Wish Tivo's execs had some of His Steveness' caution before basing their entire new Series 4 UI architecture on Flash technology. It's not been good.

This builds out native iOS apps, not Flash wrapped in some disguise.

JavaTheHut
Jun 20, 2011, 11:38 AM
This builds out native iOS apps, not Flash wrapped in some disguise.

You know just a thought - it would be nice to see an Android app versus a flash app for Android run toe to toe to get benchmarks on power/resources/speed etc. I say Android since well you know Flash not running on iOS etc...

ranReloaded
Jun 20, 2011, 11:46 AM
You know just a thought - it would be nice to see an Android app versus a flash app for Android run toe to toe to get benchmarks on power/resources/speed etc. I say Android since well you know Flash not running on iOS etc...

Not long time ago, there was a debate on whether the apps built with the Flash Packager were being 100% compiled into an ARM instructions + resources bundle (akin to what Xcode does), or if the binary instead consisted of
1)A small, ARM-native Flash interpreter (Virtual Machine) and
2)A 'payload' .swf script.

Which one was true? I find it difficult to believe the Flash Tool is resolving all (most?) of the AS3 calls into Cocoa, in any consistent and efficient way.

Then again, Unity3D forces dlls, C# and Garbage Collection down your throat.

pubwvj
Jun 20, 2011, 11:48 AM
"The reaction from developers to the new mobile capabilities in Flash Builder 4.5 and the Flex 4.5 framework has been absolutely fantastic," said Ed Rowe, vice president of developer tooling, Adobe

It is amazing to me that marketing people fail to realize just how non-credible statements like this are. Bling, glits, Flash. As normal.

NAG
Jun 20, 2011, 11:55 AM
with poorly coded HTML 4

or

with poorly coded HTML 5

or

with poorly coded Silverlight

etc.

(don't confuse bad programming with bad technology)

With a sense of humor. Oh wait.

Sigh, I'm agreeing with the use the right tool for the job line and people go all crazy.

.11
Jun 20, 2011, 11:57 AM
You know just a thought - it would be nice to see an Android app versus a flash app for Android run toe to toe to get benchmarks on power/resources/speed etc. I say Android since well you know Flash not running on iOS etc...

Adobe had a showcase of iPhone apps built with Flash CS5, the only one I remember is the South Park avatar creator.

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/south-park-avatar-creator/id331751052?mt=8

nagromme
Jun 20, 2011, 12:03 PM
If it's "cross-platform" then that means NONE of the UNIQUE FEATURES of iOS will be usable in these conversions. Otherwise, the conversion would not work on Android and Blackberry.

Hence, Apple's argument the first time. Apps wll be "ordinary" leading users to feel that it is iOS that is simply "ordinary."

There ought to be a disclaimer for these Apps.

Agreed, except in the case of (some) games. Games and “graphics toys” can get away with quirky UIs (in fact, that’s often part of the fun) and they don’t all necessarily need access to specific hardware or OS features—and I expect Adobe can and will support (some of) those specific things anyway.

Now, Game Center fans may not care for this! But a dev can most likely custom-program GC support in Xcode anyway, so that’s still not necessarily a deal-breaker. We’ll have to see how that plays out in practice.

I certainly agree that we don’t need non-game apps that don’t use proper iOS bounce-scrolling, proper toggles/popovers/reels/buttons, proper touch hit areas, auto-save/resume, voiceover support, etc. (and there’s no way Adobe’s going to support all the million things like that that make the iOS experience unique and great).

In other words, nobody wants a bunch of apps that feel open source :o But reviews and wallets will address that just fine (since those kind of apps have always existed) so... I welcome this new tool, and might even use it to make a simple game some day!

xxBURT0Nxx
Jun 20, 2011, 12:07 PM
Good news for consumers. If a dev is more comfortable creating their app with another tool or what have you, they should be allowed to use that tool to create their app and sell it on the App Store.

We will get more apps, it will be easier for devs to get apps on multiple platforms, and allows for more choice in the market rather than a dev having to decide which platform to code for.

Glad apple pulled their head out of their ass on this one.

MacAddict1978
Jun 20, 2011, 12:08 PM
Have a look at this and tell me what's ordinary about it:

http://machinarium.net

That game is made with Flash, it runs on OS X (and can even be purchased in the Mac AppStore), Linux and Windows and if Steve Jobs would listen to reason, stuff like this could also run just as easily on your fancy little iGadgets. At least now, thanks to Adobe and not thanks to Apple, there is a way for developers and designers to also port their great work to your crippled iPads and iPhones.

By the way, Flash 10.3 runs extraordinarily well on the Samsung Galaxy S2. I don't know why His Steveness is brainwashing everybody to believe that Flash performs poorly on phones. But then again, the S2 runs with an OS that was NOT designed to restrict its users and it also has a fully featured web browser.

While your post is totally off topic (since this wasn't a thread about Flash Player), I do have this to say.

Flash runs "extraordinarily well"? No, it's run better than it has on other devices so far. Have you read reviews for that device? There's still content that it chokes on, games that can't play well, etc. It's an improvement. One of the best experiences on a phone, but still marred. Battery drains are better, but it still drains battery life fast. (Much faster than HTML5 content) Only a few phones have been released that I've seen reviews that gave flash performance anything near a favorable spin, and I read them all, for every carrier. Adobe finally has some fire under their arses and they're actually trying to develop again for a change. Apple probably gave Adobe the kick in the pants they needed because it put them in a line of fire all over, not just from Apple. The last Version of flash for the Mac was a HUGE improvement performance wise, and I don't think they'd have put the effort into had it not been for the negative attention. It now a question of if they can innovate improvements faster than people are finding alternative technologies.

And you compared a flash game running on desk top os-es to mobile ones? Our Macs run flash just fine thank you. I despise when people throw a bunch of junk into a conversation that has no baring on the subject, which btw, isn't about flash player performance, but using Adobe's tools to port apps to various platforms.

The only thing I will credit you with is that Apple should let us be adults and decide if we want to install Flash on an IOS device, and not ban it like it's a narcotic or pornography. Personally, I haven't been at all bothered without it. Flash for Honeycomb has been the most stable, and functional mobile release so far, but Honeycomb is spared a lot of the fragmentation that plagued the mobile handsets. Google took a cue from from Steve Jobs with their tablet OS and locked it down a bit.

90% (from my own experience, not stating a fact) of the Apps I see people have are simple apps that a port wouldn't offer a bad experience with. Something like the USA Today app that basically is just a shell that drops a web feed doesn't need a lot of intricacy behind it. Now say something like The Sims, a game with a lot of dynamics, would fare better being more native. I think developers are capable of figuring out how they need to build their apps to make them efficient. There will always be crap apps... but not because of the tools, because the developers just want to throw as many 99 cent fart and gimmick apps out there to snag a buck and move on to the next. Lazy developers.

chaosbunny
Jun 20, 2011, 12:49 PM
Hence, Apple's argument the first time. Apps wll be "ordinary" leading users to feel that it is iOS that is simply "ordinary."

Well, iOS is pretty ordinary, I didn't need any apps to figure that out. ;)

racketeer71
Jun 20, 2011, 12:55 PM
I'm just hoping this won't be a complete mess like Adobe's publishing tools where you download 500 mb pictures instead of text. Might as well just scan the printed magazine while they're at it.

Ah, like iWeb?

NAG
Jun 20, 2011, 12:58 PM
Ah, like iWeb?

Didn't say Adobe had a monopoly on junk and bloat. They just happen to be highly represented in the online, iPad-publishing marketplace. iWeb is not represented there at all, last time I checked. But hey, Ford trucks really suck compared to Dodge so I guess you have a point.

FloatingBones
Jun 20, 2011, 01:06 PM
This isn't a discussion about the Flash plugin, it's a discussion about Flash Builder.
You think they know the difference?

As far as I'm concerned, it really is the same thing.

If Flash really is the Alpha and Omega of the user experience, then users would be clamoring for Flash apps -- the same Flash apps -- on all platforms. All Flash applications would function correctly on all browsers on all computers and all portable devices. iOS and Android Flash Apps built with this new Flash Builder would function the same way, too. We would all be in Flash Nirvanna: nobody would even think of not using these tools for building their apps.

If the lack of Flash has kept the owners of the 200M+ iOS devices from the "full web experience", we now have an answer. Those award-winning Flash apps can now be ported in their full glory to iOS. They can now rapidly climb to best-selling status in all categories. If they're still buying ads, RIMM will have to update the narrative on their ad with the Queen soundtrack. :D

Dagless: the behavior of Flash apps in browsers has always been idiosyncratic. In my browser, certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. I can't search for certain text within the Flash app (unless the developer rolls their own text-search functionality in their app, which would also be idiosyncratic). I always know I'm in a Flash app, and I never feel comfortable when there. When free Flash apps become available on the App Store, I'll try some. I fully expect that their behavior will not have the same feel as other iOS apps, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

Flash on the web as a whole would have died in the long run. I am happy to see Apple accelerate the process by excluding Flash from their iOS browser. And I do have sympathy for the developers who really believed that it was the Alpha and Omega of the web.

cube
Jun 20, 2011, 01:15 PM
Excellent.

Objective C is the past.

But I would still prefer Java for iPhone.

-=XX=-Nephilim
Jun 20, 2011, 01:18 PM
Here is good example of iOS app done using Flash / Flex:

http://vimeo.com/24168128

Adobe rox and Apple sux :)

WestonHarvey1
Jun 20, 2011, 01:22 PM
Excellent.

Objective C is the past.

But I would still prefer Java for iPhone.

... so ActionScript is the future?!

cube
Jun 20, 2011, 01:23 PM
... so ActionScript is the future?!

Java is the present.

WestonHarvey1
Jun 20, 2011, 01:32 PM
Java is the present.

There's hardly any meaningful differences anymore. Anyone can transition between Obj C 2.0 and Java. The real complexity in porting apps is the UI. Java doesn't solve that problem.

There's nothing that replaces Interface Builder, and certainly nothing comes close to the new XCode 4 storyboards. What's the point of going to Java if your workflow is crippled?

cube
Jun 20, 2011, 01:36 PM
There's hardly any meaningful differences anymore. Anyone can transition between Obj C 2.0 and Java. The real complexity in porting apps is the UI. Java doesn't solve that problem.

There's nothing that replaces Interface Builder, and certainly nothing comes close to the new XCode 4 storyboards. What's the point of going to Java if your workflow is crippled?

Non-portable platforms suck. Maybe there's still no Java for iOS because the idea would be to go JavaFX 2.0

WestonHarvey1
Jun 20, 2011, 01:42 PM
Non-portable platforms suck. Maybe there's still no Java for iOS because the idea would be to go JavaFX 2.0

The suckage of non-portability isn't a major issue, considering how dominant the iOS application platform is.

Apps custom designed for their native platform are always better than cross platform frameworks. They just have better fit and finish - there's no way to get around the hard work that needs to be done to make an app a good citizen.

Flex is like Swing.

cube
Jun 20, 2011, 01:49 PM
The suckage of non-portability isn't a major issue, considering how dominant the iOS application platform is.

Apps custom designed for their native platform are always better than cross platform frameworks. They just have better fit and finish - there's no way to get around the hard work that needs to be done to make an app a good citizen.

Flex is like Swing.

Like Android were nothing.

You develop the application once, fine tune for each OS.

Developing the same application multiple times is out of the question.

AidenShaw
Jun 20, 2011, 01:49 PM
So he is on an Apple laptop with a nice iron man and android sticker to hide the Apple logo. :rolleyes:

I know several Adobe engineers, and if they work on cross-platform apps they'll have Apples - since you can legally run Windows on an Apple, but you can't run Apple OSX on a Dell, Lenovo or HP.

At least the ones that I know spend most of their time running Windows because of the better development environment, and boot into Apple OSX occasionally to build and test on Apple OSX.

xxBURT0Nxx
Jun 20, 2011, 01:56 PM
Like Android were nothing.

You develop the application once, fine tune for each OS.

Developing the same application multiple times is out of the question.

exactly... this is the same as how it is for say, video game consoles. Cross platform games still can be great, and fine tuned for each respective console. If a dev wants to truly harness the features or power of one specific console, they are able to do that as well. Now they are able to do the same things with iOS, Android, and BB apps.

FloatingBones
Jun 20, 2011, 01:56 PM
Sounds like Adobe has spared no expense to make 10.3 suck less. "His Steveness" has no incentive to wait several major releases out for Adobe to 'get it right'. I will say that on XP, I see my browser complain regularly about the Flash plugin crashing. I for one can't wait to enjoy that experience on my iPad 2.

Hear, hear. Even if this version of Flash works absolutely perfectly on all mobile devices, it would have been a disaster to muddle through all this time with broken Flash on iOS devices.

@Winni didn't say what percentage of Flash apps run correctly on his Samsung device.

firewood
Jun 20, 2011, 02:13 PM
Good news for consumers. If a dev is more comfortable creating their app with another tool or what have you, they should be allowed to use that tool to create their app and sell it on the App Store.

Apple learned long ago that what's "more comfortable" for the developer does not cause the creation of the best apps for the consumer, on average. If that wasn't true, then Windows Mobile apps would be outselling the iPhone (and Android) apps by a huge margin. Are they?

Non-portable platforms suck.

Talk to any cross-platform mobile developer. Java mobile apps are not portable.

The effort to port an app using this "portable platform" between device platforms, and ending up with an app that looks and feels competitive, is not much easier then rewriting the app in Objective C.

The only partially portable solution currently available is using HTML5 and Javascript for web apps or applets.

gnagy
Jun 20, 2011, 02:17 PM
I like how he keeps saying "performance is beautiful". I saw smooth scrolling 2D graphs on my 33Mhz 386, 20 years ago. Seeing them on a 1Ghz+ device is not shocking. The fact that there was no animation when the android tablet was rotated is shocking however.

xxBURT0Nxx
Jun 20, 2011, 02:23 PM
Apple learned long ago that what's "more comfortable" for the developer does not cause the creation of the best apps for the consumer, on average. If that wasn't true, then Windows Mobile apps would be outselling the iPhone (and Android) apps by a huge margin. Are they?


WP7 was last out of the gate, and has the smallest user base, why would they be outselling iPhone and Android apps? Especially by a huge margin?

Just because it's developed cross platform does not mean the apps can't be good. Do you not realize how similar many apps are between Android and iOS anyways? Pandora, Facebook, Slacker, many weather apps, a bunch of games, most news apps, are all very similar between Android and iOS, if the devs could have used one tool to make that app and put it on all platforms then done some debugging and testing to ensure it ran well, why does it matter to you if it's developed with Apples SDK or a 3rd party tool..?

JackAxe
Jun 20, 2011, 02:25 PM
The problem is arises when script kiddies/web designers get the idea that they too can be app developers thanks to the magical WYSIWYG Adobe products... And I'm sure Adobe isn't too eager to set the score straight in that respect.

You mean like Corona SDK, that uses Lua script and makes some things deceptively easy.. Or all the iOS web apps that were developed using the WebVeiw...

Anyways, unless I've taken what you've written out of context -- which I doubt, you're speaking out of complete ignorance. This is the age of the web, do some research. READ for the sake of being informed.

racketeer71
Jun 20, 2011, 02:43 PM
Some of my favorite iPhone games are from Donut Games and Miniclip.com.

They look and play almost exactly like the games on their websites.

Do the Flash-haters think those games were re-written in arcane objective-c? (I.e. Rat on the Run, Fragger)

If not, it just goes to show that funny and amuzing games can be made in Flash for the iPhone, as long as one is willing to admit that a game doesn't need fancy 3D graphics at 100 FPS to be fun and amuzing.

res1233
Jun 20, 2011, 02:44 PM
Mac laptop covered with an Android sticker, and the only mobile device there that he labels as his was the iPad 2. He's probably a member of these forums.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 20, 2011, 03:01 PM
Have a look at this and tell me what's ordinary about it:

http://machinarium.net

That game is made with Flash, it runs on OS X (and can even be purchased in the Mac AppStore), Linux and Windows and if Steve Jobs would listen to reason, stuff like this could also run just as easily on your fancy little iGadgets. At least now, thanks to Adobe and not thanks to Apple, there is a way for developers and designers to also port their great work to your crippled iPads and iPhones.

By the way, Flash 10.3 runs extraordinarily well on the Samsung Galaxy S2. I don't know why His Steveness is brainwashing everybody to believe that Flash performs poorly on phones. But then again, the S2 runs with an OS that was NOT designed to restrict its users and it also has a fully featured web browser.

Extraordinarily well? 10.3 runs like garbage on general Linux and Nvidia has already confirmed Flash's vdpau is broken and Adobe is silent on fixing it.

Ijustfarted
Jun 20, 2011, 03:07 PM
This isn't a discussion about the Flash plugin, it's a discussion about Flash Builder.

You think they know the difference?

Lmao. I'm lol'ing at those idiots as well

.11
Jun 20, 2011, 03:12 PM
There's hardly any meaningful differences anymore. Anyone can transition between Obj C 2.0 and Java. The real complexity in porting apps is the UI. Java doesn't solve that problem.

There's nothing that replaces Interface Builder, and certainly nothing comes close to the new XCode 4 storyboards. What's the point of going to Java if your workflow is crippled?

Really? That interesting, I've looked at Obj C, but never tackled since I don't have a mac. But now that I am getting on I will take another look.

If you have used Objective C, can you translate this quick Java code to Obj C.


import com.appname.features;

public class ObjCToJavaTest {

private string name;
private string id;

public ObjCToJavaTest () {
this.name = '';
this.id = '';
}

public Test(string _name, string _id) {
this.name = _name;
this.id = _id;
}

public void outputMessage() {
System.out.println(printMessage());
}

private string printMessage() {
if(valuesSet())
return id + " " + name;
else
return "Values not set";
}

private boolean valuesSet() {
return !name.equals("") && !id.equals("");
}

public static void main(String args[]) {
Test firstTest = new Test();
System.out.println(firstTest.outputMessage());

System.out.println();

Test secondTest = new Test(".11", "42");
System.out.println(secondTest.outputMessage());
}
}

ericmooreart
Jun 20, 2011, 03:25 PM
This isn't a discussion about the Flash plugin, it's a discussion about Flash Builder.


Thank you!!!! At least one other person gets it.

miografico
Jun 20, 2011, 03:33 PM
If it's "cross-platform" then that means NONE of the UNIQUE FEATURES of iOS will be usable in these conversions. Otherwise, the conversion would not work on Android and Blackberry.

Hence, Apple's argument the first time. Apps wll be "ordinary" leading users to feel that it is iOS that is simply "ordinary."

There ought to be a disclaimer for these Apps.

I have many applications on my iPhone and iPad that buck Apple's user interface conventions. Every time I open them up the first words I speak are not, "I hate how this doesn't follow all of Apple's UI Conventions."

Don't be a lemming.

I am curious as to how developers truly view Flash as a development tool for iOS devices. I had a chance to consult on a project and found that the developers were nothing but frustrated with Flash.. the designers, on the other hand liked it because they (thought) they knew what they were doing... yet they brought in developers as well as me because they couldn't get the project off the ground... :rolleyes:

This is true as Adobe was thrown completely off base, killed the compiler project and had to reboot on their iOS efforts once comrade Jobs changed his mind. I believe with enough time and resources they will have a passable development product, but I still think that's another point release even with what I see above.

Probably because the OS X implementation of Flash was terrible. And if Adobe wasn't going to fix issues on that, who could say how well they would do an iOS version of Flash? So it's great that Adobe actually did a good version for something. However, Apple made its decision based on the support and performance Flash had on OS X. I also believe Apple examined Flash on other platforms and found issues as well.

I wish you had access to the console like we developers do so you could see how often native iOS applications crash as well. There is a major disinformation about what is a good development environment, compiler, toolset vs. who is a good programmer or a good group of coders in general. Stop believing propaganda.

The APIs specific to the OS that the developers use. Apple adds hundreds of them every update. Adobe Adobe won't be able to make their tools work consistent across every platform because many APIs are unique to specific platforms and so developers will have to make shortcuts and cut back on use of certain APIs and advanced features that don't exist on other platforms or are hard to represent across each one.

This is the problem with all cross platform solutions. That's why iTunes doesn't work as well on Windows compared to Mac and why Microsoft Office on Mac suffers compared to Microsoft Office on Windows. The OS is different and so coding the same features on different OSs is far more difficult than you probably realize. If these large companies have problems with this, how well do you think Adobe and small developers are going to be able to cope?

This all depends upon the context of your application itself. What is it your application was written to accomplish? What is its intent? Does it have a large user base or a limited user base? Is it a game or what could be considered more of a regular application? Is it something for the consumer or something to be used in house?. If you need the full features provided by the SDK then for all means go with the Xcode Objetive-C approach and have the full weight of the SDK behind you.

Options hurt no one they move the market forward.

iTunes runs like crap because the last two versions were honking bloated pieces of garbage.

You may be right regarding Unity and Flex, but the whole point of exporting iOS apps from the Flash Professional IDE is so that non-devs can draw their timeline-based sprite animations on the GUI.

This is nonsense outside of the Flash and Flash professional IDE. Flash Builder is a complete development environment using Actionscript and XML. Actionscript is a Javascript or ECMA compliant language. If you hate Actionscript you hate Javascript which means you hate other implementations of interactive content on the web outside of Flash: libraries such as JQuery full frameworks like Cappuccino, Sproutcore and etc.

Flash Builder (Used to be Flex) has a huge corporate market share for development of internal web applications and they perform really well. The Flex DataGrid alone and how it can handle millions of rows makes it worth the cost of a development license.

There's hardly any meaningful differences anymore. Anyone can transition between Obj C 2.0 and Java. The real complexity in porting apps is the UI. Java doesn't solve that problem.
your workflow is crippled?

I so wish that were the case 99% of the time for any major application it's a battle. They are two completely different languages, and while it is much easier to go from Objective-C to Java as opposed to C#, it's nowhere near as 1-2-3 done as you are making it. (And that's UI aside)

WP7 was last out of the gate, and has the smallest user base, why would they be outselling iPhone and Android apps? Especially by a huge margin?

Microsoft has a marketing problem and a leadership problem. It's name is Steve Ballmer.

gnagy
Jun 20, 2011, 04:47 PM
Really? That interesting, I've looked at Obj C, but never tackled since I don't have a mac. But now that I am getting on I will take another look.

If you have used Objective C, can you translate this quick Java code to Obj C.


import com.appname.features;

public class ObjCToJavaTest {

private string name;
private string id;

public ObjCToJavaTest () {
this.name = '';
this.id = '';
}

public Test(string _name, string _id) {
this.name = _name;
this.id = _id;
}

public void outputMessage() {
System.out.println(printMessage());
}

private string printMessage() {
if(valuesSet())
return id + " " + name;
else
return "Values not set";
}

private boolean valuesSet() {
return !name.equals("") && !id.equals("");
}

public static void main(String args[]) {
Test firstTest = new Test();
System.out.println(firstTest.outputMessage());

System.out.println();

Test secondTest = new Test(".11", "42");
System.out.println(secondTest.outputMessage());
}
}



I'm not sure what this is going to prove, but I translated your code. And mine will compile and run, too. I'm pretty sure this is wrong:
System.out.println(firstTest.outputMessage())
You are passing a void function into System.out.println(), which shouldn't work....


#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>

@interface Test : NSObject {
@private
NSString *name;
NSString *theId;
}

- (id)init;
- (id)initWithName:(NSString *)_name andId:(NSString *)_theId;
- (void)outputMessage;
- (NSString *)printMessage;
- (BOOL)valuesSet;

@end

@implementation Test

- (id)init
{
if ((self = [super init]))
{
self->name = @"";
self->theId = @"";
}
return self;
}

- (id)initWithName:(NSString *)_name andId:(NSString *)_theId
{
if ((self = [super init]))
{
self->name = _name;
self->theId = _theId;
}
return self;
}

- (void)outputMessage
{
NSLog([self printMessage]);
}

- (NSString *)printMessage
{
if([self valuesSet])
{
return [NSString stringWithFormat:@"%@ %@", theId, name];
}
else
{
return @"Values not set";
}
}

- (BOOL)valuesSet
{
return ([name compare:@""] != 0 && [theId compare:@""] != 0);
}

@end


int main (int argc, const char * argv[])
{
NSAutoreleasePool * pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];

Test *firstTest = [[Test alloc] init];
NSLog([firstTest printMessage]);

Test *secondTest = [[Test alloc] initWithName:@".11" andId:@"42"];
NSLog([secondTest printMessage]);

[firstTest release];
[secondTest release];
[pool drain];
return 0;
}

.11
Jun 20, 2011, 05:08 PM
I'm not sure what this is going to prove, but I translated your code. And mine will compile and run, too. I'm pretty sure this is wrong:
System.out.println(firstTest.outputMessage())
You are passing a void function into System.out.println(), which shouldn't work....


#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>

@interface Test : NSObject {
@private
NSString *name;
NSString *theId;
}

- (id)init;
- (id)initWithName:(NSString *)_name andId:(NSString *)_theId;
- (void)outputMessage;
- (NSString *)printMessage;
- (BOOL)valuesSet;

@end

@implementation Test

- (id)init
{
if ((self = [super init]))
{
self->name = @"";
self->theId = @"";
}
return self;
}

- (id)initWithName:(NSString *)_name andId:(NSString *)_theId
{
if ((self = [super init]))
{
self->name = _name;
self->theId = _theId;
}
return self;
}

- (void)outputMessage
{
NSLog([self printMessage]);
}

- (NSString *)printMessage
{
if([self valuesSet])
{
return [NSString stringWithFormat:@"%@ %@", theId, name];
}
else
{
return @"Values not set";
}
}

- (BOOL)valuesSet
{
return ([name compare:@""] != 0 && [theId compare:@""] != 0);
}

@end


int main (int argc, const char * argv[])
{
NSAutoreleasePool * pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];

Test *firstTest = [[Test alloc] init];
NSLog([firstTest printMessage]);

Test *secondTest = [[Test alloc] initWithName:@".11" andId:@"42"];
NSLog([secondTest printMessage]);

[firstTest release];
[secondTest release];
[pool drain];
return 0;
}


Lol! Your right about the void noobish mistake :D

And I'm not trying to prove anything, I plan to start learning objective C, and I wanted to see how similar Obj C 2.0 to Java is. I'm at work so I'll read your coded when I get off.

Dookieman
Jun 20, 2011, 06:32 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

So with Apple easing up on development environments, could this mean companies like Real Software produce iPhone apps with RealBasic? Or is this just one time deal?

.11
Jun 20, 2011, 06:46 PM
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>

@interface Test : NSObject {
@private
NSString *name;
NSString *theId;
}

- (id)init;
- (id)initWithName:(NSString *)_name andId:(NSString *)_theId;
- (void)outputMessage;
- (NSString *)printMessage;
- (BOOL)valuesSet;

@end

@implementation Test

- (id)init
{
if ((self = [super init]))
{
self->name = @"";
self->theId = @"";
}
return self;
}

- (id)initWithName:(NSString *)_name andId:(NSString *)_theId
{
if ((self = [super init]))
{
self->name = _name;
self->theId = _theId;
}
return self;
}

- (void)outputMessage
{
NSLog([self printMessage]);
}

- (NSString *)printMessage
{
if([self valuesSet])
{
return [NSString stringWithFormat:@"%@ %@", theId, name];
}
else
{
return @"Values not set";
}
}

- (BOOL)valuesSet
{
return ([name compare:@""] != 0 && [theId compare:@""] != 0);
}

@end


int main (int argc, const char * argv[])
{
NSAutoreleasePool * pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];

Test *firstTest = [[Test alloc] init];
NSLog([firstTest printMessage]);

Test *secondTest = [[Test alloc] initWithName:@".11" andId:@"42"];
NSLog([secondTest printMessage]);

[firstTest release];
[secondTest release];
[pool drain];
return 0;
}


This is nothing like Java, it will take sometime to get the syntax down but it's not that bad.

Thanks for the translation!

RichCoder
Jun 20, 2011, 07:08 PM
Hey jclardy,

You say it is great for subscription services. Is it possible to still interface with the specific device APIs to handle subscription purchases? I'm curious because I have a subscription based iOS app, but I'm now looking at Android, Blackberry, etc. Recreating my iOS app with this might make the best sense as long I can still sell subscriptions on the iOS device.

Thanks,
-rich


It is great for subscription services that want to get on as many devices as possible as they no longer have to recode everything for the separate platforms. Of course you can already do this with web technologies like in the Netflix app which basically is just a web view.

ranReloaded
Jun 20, 2011, 09:09 PM
Java is the present.

Java is the 90's.

MrNomNoms
Jun 20, 2011, 09:41 PM
Funny enough this is coming at a moment where I am sitting on my Adobe CS5 and wondering whether I'm better off in the future purchasing a copy of Hype and Pixelmator to replace what I have. It may be all very nice for Adobe to boast about its huge customer base that is resistant to change but I'm sure a day of reckoning will come as the alternatives become more feature complete. The only thing that I use Flash for is to make slide shows but the reason I haven't changed over to an HTML has been laziness on my part and the lack of an easy to use tool to make it possible - with Hype being offered the reason to keep using CS5 becomes less and less.

This is truly getting beyond a joke; first they release CS5 with minimal changes over CS4, then they push out CS5.5 this year but refuse to backport features to CS5 and now they release Flash Builder/Flex 4.5 but no updates provided to CS5 customers - I have to ask why the hell I keep hanging around using Adobe products where Adobe seem to be hell bent on double dipping when it comes to customers; purchase the latest version of Creative Suite but in reality you haven't got the latest version because Adobe will sneak out a minimal paid update.

Don't get me started on their support policy - people give Microsoft a hard time but at least they support their products for the long term which is in stark contrast to Adobe who seem to stop supporting their products 6 months after releasing.

Oh well, Pixelmator 2.0 and Hype 1.x updates are just around the corner which will hopefully mean I can in the future free up 9GB worth of space by not having to install it any longer for my work.

ranReloaded
Jun 20, 2011, 09:42 PM
You mean like Corona SDK, that uses Lua script and makes some things deceptively easy..

Lua... We used that to script some actions on the PS3. But the graphics were done in ligcm, I believe (I was doing physics - from scratch because the middleware kinda sucked).

No, I mean software design philosophy.

In any case I don't think Epic is using either Unity3D or Corona.


Or all the iOS web apps that were developed using the WebVeiw...


Talk about being out of context...


Anyways, unless I've taken what you've written out of context -- which I doubt, you're speaking out of complete ignorance.

Seems some script kiddie felt offended, didn't we?

This is the age of the web,

No, my friend, this is the age of mobile. Limited resources. Can't afford to sit your lazy developer a** on some pile of inefficient, redundant and bloated middleware. Of course in any age there's people who do things the right way and people who cut corners.

do some research. READ for the sake of being informed.

I try to read things other than forum posts, but thank you for the advice.

I'm not sure what this is going to prove, but I translated your code. And mine will compile and run, too. I'm pretty sure this is wrong:
System.out.println(firstTest.outputMessage())
You are passing a void function into System.out.println(), which shouldn't work....


#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>

@interface Test : NSObject {
@private
NSString *name;
NSString *theId;
}

- (id)init;
- (id)initWithName:(NSString *)_name andId:(NSString *)_theId;
- (void)outputMessage;
- (NSString *)printMessage;
- (BOOL)valuesSet;

@end

@implementation Test

- (id)init
{
if ((self = [super init]))
{
self->name = @"";
self->theId = @"";
}
return self;
}

- (id)initWithName:(NSString *)_name andId:(NSString *)_theId
{
if ((self = [super init]))
{
self->name = _name;
self->theId = _theId;
}
return self;
}

- (void)outputMessage
{
NSLog([self printMessage]);
}

- (NSString *)printMessage
{
if([self valuesSet])
{
return [NSString stringWithFormat:@"%@ %@", theId, name];
}
else
{
return @"Values not set";
}
}

- (BOOL)valuesSet
{
return ([name compare:@""] != 0 && [theId compare:@""] != 0);
}

@end


int main (int argc, const char * argv[])
{
NSAutoreleasePool * pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];

Test *firstTest = [[Test alloc] init];
NSLog([firstTest printMessage]);

Test *secondTest = [[Test alloc] initWithName:@".11" andId:@"42"];
NSLog([secondTest printMessage]);

[firstTest release];
[secondTest release];
[pool drain];
return 0;
}


You're leaking an NSString on line 37... kidding! :D

gnagy
Jun 20, 2011, 11:06 PM
This is nothing like Java, it will take sometime to get the syntax down but it's not that bad.

Thanks for the translation!

Yeah, there's definitely a learning curve. It might even seem really difficult at first, but once you get used to it, you'll find it easy and fun.

miografico
Jun 21, 2011, 12:26 AM
Funny enough this is coming at a moment where I am sitting on my Adobe CS5 and wondering whether I'm better off in the future purchasing a copy of Hype and Pixelmator to replace what I have. It may be all very nice for Adobe to boast about its huge customer base that is resistant to change but I'm sure a day of reckoning will come as the alternatives become more feature complete. The only thing that I use Flash for is to make slide shows but the reason I haven't changed over to an HTML has been laziness on my part and the lack of an easy to use tool to make it possible - with Hype being offered the reason to keep using CS5 becomes less and less.

This is truly getting beyond a joke; first they release CS5 with minimal changes over CS4, then they push out CS5.5 this year but refuse to backport features to CS5 and now they release Flash Builder/Flex 4.5 but no updates provided to CS5 customers - I have to ask why the hell I keep hanging around using Adobe products where Adobe seem to be hell bent on double dipping when it comes to customers; purchase the latest version of Creative Suite but in reality you haven't got the latest version because Adobe will sneak out a minimal paid update.

Don't get me started on their support policy - people give Microsoft a hard time but at least they support their products for the long term which is in stark contrast to Adobe who seem to stop supporting their products 6 months after releasing.

Oh well, Pixelmator 2.0 and Hype 1.x updates are just around the corner which will hopefully mean I can in the future free up 9GB worth of space by not having to install it any longer for my work.

I agree on that completely they are an absolute pig with fees, what is included, and now that they are moving to half point releases are out of control. Not to mention the crap that breaks every time there is an upgrade with their design tools.

MrNomNoms
Jun 22, 2011, 11:30 AM
I agree on that completely they are an absolute pig with fees, what is included, and now that they are moving to half point releases are out of control. Not to mention the crap that breaks every time there is an upgrade with their design tools.

And the blaming of Apple for their own crap programming is what erks me the most - they know their installer breaks every rule in the book but by hell or high water they're not going to let that get in their way of pushing out yet another minimal update of half baked 'enhancements' based on a pile of crap they called code.

I sometimes wish that Apple would go out, purchase the companies that make Hype, Pixelmator and Quark, and offer a a complete package (Final Cut X Pro + Compressor + Motion + Hype + Pixelmator + Quark (lots of improvements before releasing it)) for US$399. Adobe is in desperate need of facing some real competition because we've already see over the last couple of years what happens when Adobe has none.

ader
Jun 23, 2011, 11:26 AM
You may be right regarding Unity and Flex, but the whole point of exporting iOS apps from the Flash Professional IDE is so that non-devs can draw their timeline-based sprite animations on the GUI.

I'm pretty sure this scenario isn't available.

The original packager exported .fla files to iOS but never got out of beta if I remember correctly.

This new tool, does not allow designers to create content in the Flash IDE and export to iOS. It provides a means for Flex AS3 developers to create flex as3 mobile projects targeting iOS (and other platforms). The two are vastly different.

Bernard SG
Jun 24, 2011, 04:15 AM
Flash is coming on the iPad
http://scoopertino.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/flash_site.jpg

...not!

Source: http://scoopertino.com/apple-blinks-new-ipad-xl-to-offer-flash-capability/