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

[DJ Dilbert]

Everyone keeps saying "DIE FLASH DIE", and I'm all for that, but the fact of the matter is that HTML 5 is basically a BETA technology now, unused by most websites!

EVEN YOUTUBE HTML 5 IS BETA!​

That's why I laugh at all the Apple FANBOY posts here.

You people don't live in the REAL WORLD.

Step away from the Reality Distortion Field for a minute please! LOL

The distortion field is just about every exaggerated thing that Jobs speaks about. e.g. "the iPad is magical". I've used it and there is nothing surprising about it other than it's size and the speakers make the thing vibrate...

But I agree with HyperZ, that you people need to look at reality.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Anyone that seriously believe ads are going to start popping up in the iPhone OS is naive.

It's not naive, it's cynical.

iAds is just about keeping an emerging market out of Google's hands.

That's secondary. The main reason is Apple wants a cut of the ad revenue that devs are already making using ad networks that beat Apple to the punch. The almighty dollar is Steve's motivation. Good business move. Sucky for us.

There are ads in free apps now and there will be ads in free apps with iAds ... what's the big deal.

I thought ads were the reason everyone hates flash? Why accept Apple's version without a grain of salt?

You seriously believe that if you buy an app like Things it will suddenly be plastered with ads?

Why not? Steve Jobs said he wants to make it easy for developers (and therefore Apple) to make money off of ads. The rush to the bottom of the barrel 99 cent pricing scheme and "freemium" apps mean devs have to recoup losses somewhere. The app store is a new gold rush. Once good apps get lost in the massive app store and sea of bad apps, people start plastering their apps with ads to recoup development costs.

 

[samcraig]

Which is why Apple is doing so badly in the market.

Oops, they aren't.

People that buy Apple products want hassle free reliability in a mobile device and Apple provides that. People are as well free to buy Androids or anything else for that manner. That would be what you call freedom of choice.

I am writing you down on the Freedom of Choice side.

Guess that means you have pretty much finished up your mission here...

Well to be fair - Apple IS doing fine in the marketplace. But compared to their competition? Not so much.

Clearly other companies are offering value to more users than Apple is - regardless of how great Apple products are or are not.

Time will tell whether those that, as you say, want a hassle-free (by the way - any technology has hassles. I have and know plenty of people with Apple/OS horror stories) "reliability" continue to grow and displace those that don't. They have a ways to go (consumers, not Apple) in making "the switch."

I'm also not a "strong" believer that simpler/less hassles is better as a rule. The wheel - and even a bicycle is simple, easy to maintain and is relatively "hassle-free" - and great "tools"/"devices". But it has limitations as a mode of transportation. A Car is far harder to maintain and offers a lot more. Perhaps a bad analogy - but maybe not. Point is - they all work. They all have pluses and minuses.

 

[DJ Dilbert]

I wish Adobe and Apple could get passed all this. I rely on Adobe apps every day and would hate to see Adobe become even less inclined to create solid OSX apps due to this iphone bickering/bad relationship. I can see Adobe's fault in allowing Flash to remain so processor hungry but it also seems quite tyrannical for Apple to shut the door on the iphone packager at the last minute. I also think Job's public jabs at Flash are unprofessional. Come on guys, there's opportunity for everyone in this game!

Well to play devil's advocate, wasn't it adobe that basically told Apple to go screw itself over the decision?

 

[ct2k7]

Considering I'm a web developer I think I understand very well what both Flash and HTML5 are. Thanks for being a complete ass though.

I am a web developer. Many developers just don't know what the technologies are though.

Just look at what Google did.

Only works in two browsers, and doesn't perform that well on my laptop.

 

[coleridge78]

please tell me more about what I don't know.

I'm not really interested in how long you've developed Flex and Java apps. Longetivity does not cause quality.

If you profess a belief in write-once-run-anywhere, you are anti-user. Period, end of story. By definition it means serving the lowest common denominator, which denies users any non-LCD capabilities of their chosen system.

Not to mention the performance issues. "Write-once" translation layers like the Flash plugin are never optimized for more than two platforms, max. Usually only one (in Flash's case, it sucks on anything other than Wintel).

 

[cwt1nospam]

Well to be fair - Apple IS doing fine in the marketplace. But compared to their competition? Not so much.

Yeah, poor Apple. All they've got is a measly $50 Billion in cash, no debt, and four huge cash cows in the Mac, iPod, iPhone, and now iPad.

 

[SteveSparks]

All adobe needs to do to get flash on the iPhone is get it on all the other mobile Internet devices. That has yet to happen fully.

 

[cwt1nospam]

If you profess a belief in write-once-run-anywhere, you are anti-user. Period, end of story. By definition it means serving the lowest common denominator, which denies users any non-LCD capabilities of their chosen system.

Not to mention the performance issues. "Write-once" translation layers like the Flash plugin are never optimized for more than two platforms, max. Usually only one (in Flash's case, it sucks on anything other than Wintel).

Quoted for emphasis. Meta-platforms are for lazy developers and are anti-user.

 

[SteveSparks]

Well to play devil's advocate, wasn't it adobe that basically told Apple to go screw itself over the decision?

Someone correct me, but really this started when adobe was slow to support intel on the Mac.

 

[kresh]

Suckers. Apple is pulling one over on us all, big time.

At least with Flash, you have click-to-flash. With hmtl5, it'll be all-or-nothing and if you want the best battery life and performance, you'll need to buy the latest hardware.

Go to this html5 demo of simple controls and watch your CPU heat up.

http://demo.sproutcore.com/sample_controls/

I imagine a RIA or web game built using HTML5 would make you computer simply explode!...

PS. Despite the topic header, this really is all about Apple trying to kill Flash in order to lock in hardware sales.

I went to that website, opened the website in each tab, then selected one of the website tabs in order so that they are all running concurrently, they are java script and won't open in a separate tab.

They ran for 10 minutes and no heat, no fan spin-up and no appreciable use of the CPU. I use SMC fan control so the fan minimum speed is 1200 and the normal temperature that this 2.66 C2D 20" iMac normally runs under no load is 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

Screenshot attached (user name and bookmarks redacted):


(Thumb nail, click to view full size)

 

[PeterQVenkman]

If you profess a belief in write-once-run-anywhere, you are anti-user. Period, end of story. By definition it means serving the lowest common denominator

I guess almost all modern game developers are anti-user then, huh?

 

[ValSalva]

I still don't see anything wrong with Apple wanting to control its own platform.

If Apple is dependent on Flash developers for apps and in the future Adobe changes something in Flash that somehow negatively affects the iPod/iPhone/iPad experience Apple would be powerless.

Further, applications are more likely to be unique to Apple's platform if developers have to use Apple tools to build them. Thus more reason to buy Apple.

This just makes good business sense.

 

[noah82]

Bye Bye Flash!

 

[DJ Dilbert]

Actually, no the language in the agreement specifically states that the application has to have been "originally written" in Objective C, etc. Doesn't matter what compiles it...

Can you port it from Flash to Objective C like Adobe intended and then just clean it up in Objective C? Kind of how a designer can develop something in Illustrator, open in Flash Catalyst, and then have a coder clean it up and make it better?

 

[-=XX=-Nephilim]

Flash will rule all!

 

[DJ Dilbert]

Instead, you'll say hello to full page HTML5 ads which automatically start to play media to mask whatever you are trying to do.

And can you create vector based graphics for display in HTML5? Or are you restricted to pixels?

 

[Otaviano]

It's not naive, it's cynical.



That's secondary. The main reason is Apple wants a cut of the ad revenue that devs are already making using ad networks that beat Apple to the punch. The almighty dollar is Steve's motivation. Good business move. Sucky for us.



I thought ads were the reason everyone hates flash? Why accept Apple's version without a grain of salt?



Why not? Steve Jobs said he wants to make it easy for developers (and therefore Apple) to make money off of ads. The rush to the bottom of the barrel 99 cent pricing scheme and "freemium" apps mean devs have to recoup losses somewhere. The app store is a new gold rush. Once good apps get lost in the massive app store and sea of bad apps, people start plastering their apps with ads to recoup development costs.

I don't think money is the primary reason for iAds. I think the data that AdMob is gathering is the real gold. Apple realizes the value in this data and wants to keep it for themselves. The revenue is the cherry on top, but it's all about the data on users. That's Google's strength on the web and Apple doesn't want it to expand into the mobile space. Money is a very nice extra incentive.

I don't hate Flash because of ads. I dislike Flash because I don't think it fits in with the nature of the web. I think Flash carved a nice place for itself as a result of the Netscape/Microsoft war, and I think it's time to move past internet plug ins. I think the technology is there to move past it, and that it would be foolish not to. Browsers and operating systems will be much safer without Flash.

Your last paragraph I just don't agree with. I think maybe you are a bit too negative. There will surely be people trying to cash in on it, but that just means the demand for aps without ads will grow. I use Things on a regular basis and if they placed ads in it I would switch to another app. I'm sure a developer would jump at the chance to make that app and cash in on the people that don't want ads in their app. In my opinion the apps that have ads now will have ads, and the ones that don't will continue to not have ads. There is already no shortage of copycat apps and if 99 cents with ads becomes the norm then I'm sure developers will be around to make 1.99 without ads.

 

[DJ Dilbert]

There are some really stupid comments in this thread, especially the ones that say something to the effect of...

"Consumers keep buying iPhones and iPads which don't support Flash, so obviously consumers don't want Flash."

This is some of the blindest Apple fanboy nonsense I've ever heard. Maybe I'm missing something, but I've never heard anyone say, "I'm so glad my iPad doesn't doesn't support Flash!" In fact, reviews I've read have only stated the contrary.

Why would you want to intentionally limit your accessible content, high quality or not?

Even if it's obviously impossible, what if the iPad refused to display all images created using Photoshop? Would you be praising Apple for that, too?

It's a valid point but there is no way to tell if Photoshop was used to edit the picture or iPhoto was used...

 

[TMay]

I think you're giving Apple too much credit. It's a business move, not a move to protect users. There are plenty of crappy, buggy native apps on the iPhone.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/google-flash-chrome-browser/

And these same buggy apps are crashing the iPhone? Haven't seen much evidence of that. Haven't even heard any anecdotes.

Failed argument on your part.

 

[CaptRoddick]

To all the fanboys hootin' & hollerin' about Flash's demise. Do you really think advertisers are really going to say "Hmmm... well, no more annoying, resource hogging advertisements since Flash is gone. Darn!"

Ummm... no. There will still be plenty of.... ahem "developers" using whatever toolset they can or choose to create the same annoying, resource hogging adverts when the time comes. HTML 5 will not save us from someone putting something out there that looks and works - nevermind its crippling resource suckage. But hey, your daddy said HTML 5 so who are you to question?

 

[Otaviano]

I am a web developer. Many developers just don't know what the technologies are though.

Whatever dude, keep pating yourself on the back and don't bother to address what I said. As I said in my last post, you came off like an ass.

 

[cumanzor]

*Grabs Popcorn*

Here we go again, I expect yet another thread full of Flash vs HTML5 arguements...with the usual suspects appearing to talk about things that have absolutely no idea about!!

Markup language vs Turing Complete language (ActionScript)

Good game everyone.

 

[zimv20]

Longetivity does not cause quality.

agreed.

If you profess a belief in write-once-run-anywhere, you are anti-user. Period, end of story. By definition it means serving the lowest common denominator, which denies users any non-LCD capabilities of their chosen system.

Not to mention the performance issues. "Write-once" translation layers like the Flash plugin are never optimized for more than two platforms, max. Usually only one (in Flash's case, it sucks on anything other than Wintel).

i don't agree. i did, before i became a Flex developer. As i mentioned earlier, i'm working on an enterprise app (which is globalized and running in about a dozen countries, including an arabic one, which introduces all kinds of complications with right-to-left layout and bi-directional text). It's a big app.

it's deployed on (old and slow) Windows machines and macs. with *very few* differences, it runs exactly the same on both platforms. i believe it's also been tested on Linux with similar success.

i've got a good bit of experience (you'll just have to trust me), across many industries and against a lot of different technologies. This enterprise app has more functionality, less time to market, and easier deployment than anything i've worked on.

the platform is by no means perfect, but it certainly can do a lot. And i'm not talking about video, or ads, or games, or all the really-visible things that i think most people assume flash is.

it's closer to java than it is to html5, so it's just funny to me when people think html5 can replace flash. might as well say html5 will replace java, as well, and i think more people can see how silly that statement would be.

 

[coleridge78]

I guess almost all modern game developers are anti-user then, huh?

Well, most of them are judging by the playability and stability of most games I try these days. But seriously...

I was talking about general computing devices, not game environments, since that was the topic here. You're right. Games are a different question because they are their own environment. We all know that these days hardware is (sort-of, more-or-less) hardware. The differentiation in systems I was talking about is at the OS and framework layers. For example, an application built in Flash by your average Flash developer and then compiled for the iPhone is extremely likely to be non-standard in its controls and interactions, and not take advantage of software features available in iPhone OS but not Android (and vice versa, for that matter--if I were an Incredible owner I would avoid nearly any non-game application developed from a translation layer that allowed arbitrary interface).