Adobe to End Development on Flash-to-iPhone Compiler in Wake of Apple License Change

[iBug2]

Well not entirely true. There are some websites that are literally made entirely out of flash which is horrible form. They do it because they don't even know how to code basic html. Which says a lot, in my opinion.

I can go into the list of many reasons why flash is bad as the backdrop of the website. It is one thing to use it for specific functionality, but there are whole websites that are run in flash, and that is BAD. Not just for the site, not just for the users, but for the internet. It fundamental sidetracks the interactivity and connectivity and searchability of the internet.

This is why moving back the HTML standards is important. It is what the internet is built on. Getting away from that has always been bad. People can figure out their own ways to do their sideways trickery, but for basic web publishing and design ,things like flash absolutely should not be used or favored.

Too many people have turned flash into a website development tool, which is not what it is and not how it should be used because it is horrible at that.

I didn't mean the percentage of the content in a single website is under 60%.

Someone claimed that 60% of the websites all over do use flash to display actual content. Which is of course, bogus, unless you consider the flash advertisement on top as actual content of Macrumors.com.

About the websites which consist entirely off Flash, I can't agree more. I hate when a website is made with flash. It's tough to navigate, it's always slower, even on my 8 Core machine, it's a new interface you have to learn when you visit the damn site, it's just nonsense for eyecandy. And yes, flash must go away other than flash games, which are quite cool usually and don't have anything to do with web.

 

[iBug2]

I for one never said Pixelmator was better than Photoshop. It's still lightweight, so I said if Apple bought it and developed it into a pro app *then* it would be better. Just like they did with KeyGrip = FinalCut Pro.

Do to Photoshop what InDesign did to that other stalwart which no professioal creative could ever live without at the time, QuarkXpress. Despite all the upgrades, which are really just minor feature updates, PS is now as stale and tired as Quark was when InDesign came out all fresh and new. This happens when there is no viable competition.

Indeed. I was quite surprised when Apple came out with Final Cut and in couple of years, it gained considerable market share among film professionals. It's the primes example of a rival software appearing out of nowhere. Avid no longer has the monopoly Photoshop has now because of Final Cut.

 

[awmazz]

oh Trudy, complete hypocrisy aside for a moment, being an apple pawn to cry fowl on closed, proprietary systems is very unfashionable. if anyone believes in open standards, they should be developing for the wide open Android rather than your closed iPhone OS.

Apple's a hardware company, with sofware specifically designed to enhance that hardware. Android's not designed to enhance Apple's hardware to make it different or better or more profitable than Apple's hardware competitors, but rather would just make it the same as every other competitor's.

Watch how wise this business model is when all the Android phones come out and the manufacturers are reduced to trimming profit margins just to keep sales and differentiate their hardware from all the other identical phones. Like PCs.

 

[jaykk]

Think of windows, they are not dynamic at all, they cant change platforms or re-write anything because of backward compatibility. Where as apple like to control their own platform ( they change platform, processors, OS etc dynamically).

If they were to allow cross compilers (from adobe etc), there will be a point where Apple is tied down to these companies(to support backward compatibility).

Its plain and simple, apple wants to control their own destiny and don't want to depend on Adobe's product life cycle.

Adobe claims 98% or so market share, I still cant believe they want 100% of market share. Why don't they just leave the 2% of the share, everyone will be happy.

 

[marksman]

I bought a netbook+ instead of an iPad. Tonight I'll be hooking it up to my TV via a single HDMI cable, firing up Firefox with Flash, and re-watching that episode of Glee.

The ironic thing is when you do that with a netbook you can't do anything else. It is about the only thing I have found my netbook useful for... If I totally strip it down and don't run anything else and use a stripped down version of chrome I can use it to watch video on my tv.

How awesome netbooks are... they can literally do one thing, not poorly. Of course you can't do anything else at the same time (and we know how much people need to multi-task), but if you want a $300-$400 device simply to plug in to your tv to watch videos on your tv, then a netbook fits the bill.

Seems like a very niche product though.

 

[thatrandomguy]

steve jobs and apple are being nazis to this whole ordeal.

EDIT Hooray for thread mergers! Below comment was true when I posted it.
Godwin's Law: Invoked in the third reply.

I agree with you that Apple's move is anti-consumer.

OMG you did not just compare Apple to the Nazis on this. Do you even understand why Apple is making the policy that prevents Flash from writing to native Cocoa Touch API?

Apple has their reasons relating to usability, stability, etc... but the more logical approach is that apple wants to make the iPhone an investment. Yes, the big companies will have the resources for multiple phone apps, but the smaller devs will make a lot of apps. They'll have to choose between the iPhone platform, or other platforms. This benefits Apple economically - more apps for sale not on other platforms.

Now, you say, maybe Apple's argument holds true. iTunes for Windows, in my opinion, is an example of a terrible piece of bloatware. I gave up a couple versions ago. The number of crashes and general slowness of the app give some credibility to Jobs' claims that it leads to substandard apps.

However, Apple Developers pay for a certificate to be able to get apps approved. So there's a quality standard by review. If so, there's no reason to prevent intermediate apps from being used- the ones that were put through a tool and sent to Apple without any checking or bug fixing (translation tools are never perfect, but they save developers substantial amounts of effort)- those should be rejected by Apple's quality control process, right? And the translated apps given care should be accepted.

Or it could be Apple not keeping their customer's best interests in line, and instead keeping the bottom line in mind instead.

 

[dannymarr]

Update: CNET reports that an Apple spokesperson offered the following rebuttal to Chambers' comment that "ultimately open platforms will win out over the type of closed, locked down platform that Apple is trying to create":

"Someone has it backwards--it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary," said spokeswoman Trudy Miller in a statement.

Oh Snap!

 

[iBug2]

The ironic thing is when you do that with a netbook you can't do anything else. It is about the only thing I have found my netbook useful for... If I totally strip it down and don't run anything else and use a stripped down version of chrome I can use it to watch video on my tv.

How awesome netbooks are... they can literally do one thing, not poorly. Of course you can't do anything else at the same time (and we know how much people need to multi-task), but if you want a $300-$400 device simply to plug in to your tv to watch videos on your tv, then a netbook fits the bill.

Seems like a very niche product though.

Or you can connect your desktop to your tv and do the same thing. A netbook is good for that if the only computer you have is a netbook.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

That doesn't make any sense. HTML5 doesn't have to support multitouch.

Why not? Flash does?

 

[SactoGuy18]

In my humble opinion, people now realize in the end, we've all been bamboozled by Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field" in regards to the iPhone and the related iPad.

The very fact Apple wants TOTAL CONTROL of all apps approved for the platform and even the tools used to develop apps for it essentially turns the iPhone and iPad into a "walled garden experience" for accessing the Internet, not only violating the very open nature of the Internet itself but also possibly doing it in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts in terms of tie-ins and exclusivity in the USA and similar laws in the European Union.

As such, Adobe now realizes the iPhone OS platform is officially too closed a platform, and will now concentrate on developing for a platform that will soon be a serious threat to the iPhone and iPad: Google's Android OS. Since the release of Android 2.0 in October 2009 with the Motorola Droid cellphone, Android has become a VERY serious competitor against the iPhone OS, and unlike the iPhone OS, Android--being almost a completely "open" platform--allows for easier installation of third-party apps and your choice of development tools for the platform. It doesn't help Apple that the most prominent manufacturers of "smart" cellphones--HTC, LG, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson especially--will all roll out cellphones running Android 2.1 in 2010, and that will really spike up Android usage by the end of 2010 given the cellphone manufacturers I mentioned makes the vast majority of the world's cellphones.

Indeed, I wouldn't be be surprised that within two years Adobe's Creative Suite products will create full HTML 5.0 code, but it will only do it for running under HTML 5.0-compliant web browsers and for the Google Android and Chrome OS platforms.

 

[padrino121]

Or it could be Apple not keeping their customer's best interests in line, and instead keeping the bottom line in mind instead.

Well said.... To your point above, the review process is there already to weed out apps that do not fit Apple's profile of a good application and substandard apps are already thrown out.

 

[MorphingDragon]

In my humble opinion, people now realize in the end, we've all been bamboozled by Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field" in regards to the iPhone and the related iPad.

The very fact Apple wants TOTAL CONTROL of all apps approved for the platform and even the tools used to develop apps for it essentially turns the iPhone and iPad into a "walled garden experience" for accessing the Internet, not only violating the very open nature of the Internet itself but also possibly doing it in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts in terms of tie-ins and exclusivity in the USA and similar laws in the European Union.

As such, Adobe now realizes the iPhone OS platform is officially too closed a platform, and will now concentrate on developing for a platform that will soon be a serious threat to the iPhone and iPad: Google's Android OS. Since the release of Android 2.0 in October 2009 with the Motorola Droid cellphone, Android has become a VERY serious competitor against the iPhone OS, and unlike the iPhone OS, Android--being almost a completely "open" platform--allows for easier installation of third-party apps and your choice of development tools for the platform. It doesn't help Apple that the most prominent manufacturers of "smart" cellphones--HTC, LG, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson especially--will all roll out cellphones running Android 2.1 in 2010, and that will really spike up Android usage by the end of 2010 given the cellphone manufacturers I mentioned makes the vast majority of the world's cellphones.

Indeed, I wouldn't be be surprised that within two years Adobe's Creative Suite products will create full HTML 5.0 code, but it will only do it for running under HTML 5.0-compliant web browsers and for the Google Android and Chrome OS platforms.

Might I ask how the iPhone and the iPad is a walled garden internet experience? Its not like they're enforcing China's internet censoring on the entire world.

 

[mikes70mustang]

Adobe should just quit offering any programs for apple products period. Hmm, wonder how that would go over.

 

[Shin3r]

Yeah, you wouldn't....

Except that by banning cross-compilers Apple effectively prevents developers from cost-effectively developing for other platforms.

And Flash games cannot compete with similar (often the same) App Store games.

And Flash ads cannot compete with iAd.

No, Apple would never hinder competition....

Yes, I do. And it's not Apple's job to save everyone money. You sir are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. We should just agree to disagree, which might be the only thing we can agree on. Just so you know, competition is not about saving developers money, it's about consumers having choice, which there is plenty of.

 

[Max(IT)]

How has Adobe 'screwed' OS X users? How is the productivity suite two years behind? If you are referring to the 32-64 bit difference, then blame Apple. Apple promised, then pulled, support for 64-bit Carbon, forcing Adobe to wait until a Cocoa written suite could be developed (e.g. CS5).

Omg! Are you serious ?!? Adobe is using Carbon because they Are lazy! It's not Apple's fault. Cocoa is out there since 2001-2002.

 

[JackAxe]

Omg! Are you serious ?!? Adobe is using Carbon because they Are lazy! It's not Apple's fault. Cocoa is out there since 2001-2002.

Lazy, nice "talking point." Did you learn that from Steve Jobs.

Instead of being so critical of Adobe based on ignorance alone, please read this.

Also look into Final Cut Pro, it's still using carbon. So according to you, APPLE IS LAZY. See how that works...

 

[Hal Itosis]

Near as i can tell, X-Plane isn't developed with Flash:

• X-Plane is now here for iPad!
  
  
• App Store
  
  
• X-Plane SDK

Just sayin'... i think Apple and the iPhone/iPad will manage to "struggle along somehow" without Flash developers (sorry 'bout that chief).

Even browsing the Laminar Research website seems to be a totally Flash-free experience, other than a few links to some YouTube vids (which play fine on my iPad).

 

[macUser2007]

...Just so you know, competition is not about saving developers money, it's about consumers having choice, which there is plenty of.

You must've really studied this issue.... Those developers must be lazy too, like Adobe.

It all depends how one defines "market," of course. A court may reasonably find against Apple.

Yet, I am sure you rejoiced when MS was in a similar predicament.

... blah blah...

Great points, dude! Actually, not. They are not points at all - just bad breath....

 

[iBug2]

Lazy, nice "talking point." Did you learn that from Steve Jobs.

Instead of being so critical of Adobe based on ignorance alone, please read this.

Also look into Final Cut Pro, it's still using carbon. So according to you, APPLE IS LAZY. See how that works...

Adobe has been lazy yes. They had 10 years to do the transition to cocoa. They were "surprised" in WWDC but everyone knew eventually Apple was going to drop carbon support. Carbon has always been a transition API from OS 9 to OS X.

And yes, Apple is lazy as well because they still haven't ported FCP to cocoa.

There's a difference though. The userbase for FCP is not even a fraction of Photoshop. It has considerable market share yes, but as revenue, Photoshop has much more than FCP.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Lazy, nice "talking point." Did you learn that from Steve Jobs.

Instead of being so critical of Adobe based on ignorance alone, please read this.

Also look into Final Cut Pro, it's still using carbon. So according to you, APPLE IS LAZY. See how that works...

Apple has far more to maintain than just select media Apps. The Finder re-write would've taken a lot of man hours. (Finder.app is pretty much like explorer.exe in windows)

 

[iBug2]

Lazy, nice "talking point." Did you learn that from Steve Jobs.

Instead of being so critical of Adobe based on ignorance alone, please read this.

Also look into Final Cut Pro, it's still using carbon. So according to you, APPLE IS LAZY. See how that works...

Adobe has been lazy yes. They had 10 years to do the transition to cocoa. They were "surprised" in WWDC but everyone knew eventually Apple was going to drop carbon support. Carbon has always been a transition API from OS 9 to OS X.

And yes, Apple is lazy as well because they still haven't ported FCP to cocoa.

There's a difference though. The userbase for FCP is not even a fraction of Photoshop. It has considerable market share yes, but as revenue, Photoshop for Mac has much more than FCP. That's probably why they ported Finder first, because OS X has a much bigger revenue.

But trust me you are not the only one annoyed by the lack of attention by Apple for the Pro apps lately.

 

[JackAxe]

Apple has far more to maintain than just select media Apps. The Finder re-write would've taken a lot of man hours. (Finder.app is pretty much like explorer.exe in windows)

That's nothing but an excuse! So it's OK for Apple to let some of their products slip, because their hands are full, well fuller in your opinion. Yeah, that's convenient.

Here, read this.

What really ticks me off on both fronts, is that I'm often the one that PAYS for Apple or Adobe to fix a bug in a given product, as in they don't address a problem until the next upgrade, but that's a different rant.

Anyways, thanks for the lesson. I used my first Mac when they were released back in the eighties.

 

[MorphingDragon]

That's nothing but an excuse! So it's OK for Apple to let some of their products slip, because their hands are full, well fuller in your opinion. Yeah, that's convenient.

What really ticks me off on both fronts, is that I'm often the one that PAYS for Apple or Adobe to fix a bug in a given product, as in they don't address a problem until the next upgrade, but that's a different rant.

Read that, its just excuses. You do realise that Carbon was a transition API MEANT TO BE CUT OFF. Businesses had plenty of warning, like deprecation notes scattered thorughout the Carbon documentation. You know, that just might be a hint?

I'm not saying that Apple isn't lazy, but Adobe has a hell lot less to deal with, thus people expect more. (Just think, it takes the Linux foundation a couple of months to release a minor update. Thats only the Kernel, not related APIs, Libraries, Runtimes ETC. Linux's kernel development size is also exponentially larger than FreeBSD or DarwinOS.) Its basic resource management when it comes to the reason why a project slips over another.

Yes it does suck when the consumer pays for lethargicness but singling out Apple or Adobe for it and conveniently ignoring other factoids is plain stupid.

Like I've always said, people have expected more form Adobe.

Anyways, thanks for the lesson. I used my first Mac when they were released back in the eighties.

I also know more about OSes and 'compiled' programming than you ever will. Your point?

 

[JackAxe]

Adobe has been lazy yes. They had 10 years to do the transition to cocoa. They were "surprised" in WWDC but everyone knew eventually Apple was going to drop carbon support. Carbon has always been a transition API from OS 9 to OS X.

And yes, Apple is lazy as well because they still haven't ported FCP to cocoa.

There's a difference though. The userbase for FCP is not even a fraction of Photoshop. It has considerable market share yes, but as revenue, Photoshop for Mac has much more than FCP. That's probably why they ported Finder first, because OS X has a much bigger revenue.

But trust me you are not the only one annoyed by the lack of attention by Apple for the Pro apps lately.

Since you note that both are lazy, I'm good.

 

[JackAxe]

Read that, you do realise that Carbon was a transition API MEANT TO BE CUT OFF.

I'm not saying that Apple isn't lazy, but Adobe has a hell lot less to deal with, thus people expect more. (Just think, it takes the Linux foundation a couple of months to release a minor update. Thats only the Kernel, not related APIs, Libraries, Runtimes ETC needed to be updated by the other projects which tacks on another few months. )

Yes it does suck when the consumer pays for laziness but singling out Apple or Adobe for it and conveniently ignoring other factoids is plain stupid.



I also know more about OSes and lower level programming than you ever will. Your point?

Come on, reads this!

Either way they both have their reasoning. And I agree that singling out either company for a fault, which the other is also guilty of, is plain stupid.

My point was that you're assuming I was NEW to Macs, which I found funny. HENCE THE TONGUE. Yes, my response was sarcastic, I could have had more tact, but I like to joke. Your response on the other hand was [REDACTED].

And what's your point besides being rather arrogant? Is it to assume that you are superior to others? GREAT!

So you know assembly? I don't and that's one language I care to never learn. Your OSs comment is silly. So should I ask you a question about one? Like something obscure? Then again, ask me if I care.