Apple Blocks Adobe's Flash-to-iPhone Compiler in Latest SDK Agreement

I guess that's why Apple will always be only 10% of market share.

Windows 7 surpasses 10% market share by March 2010
But clearly, Apple is “the top 10%”. ;)



While I lova all things Apple, this decision just sucks.
With sound reasoning (such as you presented there), how could anyone possibly disagree? :confused:



I know a lot of people who listen to the radio still. Hell I listen to it all the time when I drive and wish my iPod had it in it so I could listen to it when I leave my car.

Now the station I listen to most of the is NPR. No iPod device can keep up with news or stories from NPR. Also the radio allows one to hear new music at a much quicker pace as it places new music.
Listening to the radio is one thing... putting an FM tuner inside an iPhone/iPod is another. (forgetaboutit)




Stupid Apple. Why do they care what language it was originally written in?

It seems like they are blindly continuing their anti-Adobe crusade for no reason this time.

Embrace and extend, by whoever controls the APIs that developers actually use. MS "expanded" the HTML protocol used by IE to help kill off Netscape. Apple knows enough history to not let that happen to them (again).
This. ^



I was just about to start work porting a large productivity app over to the iPhone OS with MonoTouch. Now, thanks to Apple and it's new super-fascistic developer license agreement, it looks like this will not be happening. There is simply no way we are going to rewrite the entire codebase just to get it running on the iPhone. It just isn't economically viable.

I really don't care about Flash but disallowing any static compilers on the platform is just plain crazy. Other than for Job's petty vendetta what possible reason could there be for this?

Correct. Apple doesn't want to be reliant on a proprietary format from another company on their device.

This has happened for years to Apple whether it was some of Adobe's products not being available to Mac users, ActiveX, the lack of feature parity in Office, etc..

Apple has only ever tried to exert control on their own platform. They believe that keeping the web on open standards is to their advantage.
This. ^

EDIT: folks, you really need to read the articles linked to in post #1. Note that Gruber's article itself contains links (like the one to ycombinator, which also links to ... etc).
 
Thank you Steve...

What a petty, petty, selfish, foolish man Steven Jobs is. Tsk.

Quite replusive you'd literally want Bill Gates tarred and feathered if he did the same. Ah, but that's the typical one-way street of Apple.

You can play ball w/ the 70-75% of the Internet who uses flash, or you can punish your Apple users.

I guess that's why Apple will always be only 10% of market share.

Windows 7 surpasses 10% market share by March 2010:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...s-10-market-share.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

Thank you for continuing to maintain the level of control over your hardware and software that has made it the most reliable technology in the consumer market. This is the primary difference between Mac OS and Windows gear and we all know the results of that difference. I'll continue to pay the higher price for technology that performs so well with few if any major software disasters because I know that in the long run I have saved money from little down time, no lost data and few hardware replacements. Thank you!
 
It is kind of funny watching all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over what is a fairly straight forward and sensible business move.

A Run Time Layer (RTL) has significant disadvantages (what the new SDK clause prohibits).

It uses more resources, (both memory and CPU cycles). On a mobile system running a limited processor and limited ram, that alone is significant.

Next though is that it leads to lowest common denominator applications. When you write an application to target 5 platforms using common upper layer and target run time layers, you get applications that are not optimized on any platform. Compare the Adobe Air cross platform App (Reversi) with a typical game on iPhone making efficient use of 3d hardware.

If such RTLs predominate you pretty much lose the ability to innovate your platform as you are at the mercy of the lowest common denominator of all the supported platforms.

Blocking such RTLs is really the only sensible course of action if you want to get the best out of your platform. I would not be the least bit surprised if Microsoft also blocks RTL as well in Win phone 7. I definitely would.

This isn't just about Adobe, it about enforcing development of true native apps which leads to better apps, and more platform innovation, which leads to better apps....

Imagine if instead of native development, console games were developed through an RTL. "Hey great, write once and run on Wii/PS3/Xbox". But if you think about it for more than 2 second you would realize the everything would be limited to the graphics of the Wii, and basic xbox/ps3 style controllers. There would be no incentive to innovate platforms because you are stuck with lowest common denominator cross platform RTL... We would probably still be using PS1 if this was the case.

Native is the only sensible way to go. Apple as usual is about enforcing the sensible.

Quoted.For.Truth
 
You can play ball w/ the 70-75% of the Internet who uses flash, or you can punish your Apple users.

I guess that's why Apple will always be only 10% of market share.

you might want to double check your facts. iPhone has over 40% of the worldwide smartphone market and just to put that in perspective Symbian is 2nd with 34%. Your favourite Windows Mobile is something like 4% or 10x less than Apple. Noone really cares what MS would do to their Application acceptance policy plus their market place is virtually nonexistent. And last I checked the web that smart phones access is quite different from the web that desktops/notebook access and there is hardly any flash in the smartphone one. Not only that but most flash sites are not designed to work on small screens . Now all that might not matter to u but it does to everyone else.

And as far as the new policy goes … hum considering Adobe's reliability track record you should be glad that they are not allowed to build apps for the iPhone. The last thing that anyone needs is a crashing phone because of a bad application.
 
What a joke

Load of dog crap. It's going to be multi-core with more memory, yet can't seem to work with the new 4.0 OS for the iPhone, just forget it, someone please send the hack one out to everyone. it's been made but the credit will goto that hacker out there unless he sells it to Adobe which he tried but have been denied a year or two ago... everyone can vouch for that.
:apple::mad:
 
All in all, bad move

Apple wants to protect the lead of its hardware platforms. Portable mobile app development that can be deployed on multiple platforms (say Android & iPhone OS) erodes the unique advantage of the app store and thus of the iPhone/iPod/iPad hardware platform where Apple makes its money.

Still, it is a countercompetitive move, not a competitive move. As such, it is overall a bad thing. It is like the runners in a track contest trying to trip each other instead of running as fast as they can. In the end, everybody is worse off.

However much I like Apple and its wondeful innovations of the last decade, this behaviour is reminiscent of Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour like trying to kill other software platforms by starving them.

Apple should not fear cross-development. In the OS wars time, it never took off seriously because underlying platforms are different enough to make cross-development a niche player at best.

Native Cocoa apps will always be more up to date with respect to new iPhone OS features, they may behave better overall. Serious cross-developed apps will be difficult to make given the differences of the underlying platforms.

Apple: please don't become too focused on anticompetitive defensive moves!
 
No Problem. Apple buys Adobe. Apple kills flash. Apple re-writes the entire flagship line making it mac only software.

one of the world's best creative package will run only on future macs and ipads.

'xcept even Apple could not cover the short term losses from acquiring Adobe and making it a mac-only sowtware house (think of how that would hurt adobe sales) and as the game's called capitalism no-one gives a damn what happens long term.

Pekka.
 
Apple wants to protect the lead of its hardware platforms. Portable mobile app development that can be deployed on multiple platforms (say Android & iPhone OS) erodes the unique advantage of the app store and thus of the iPhone/iPod/iPad hardware platform where Apple makes its money.

Still, it is a countercompetitive move, not a competitive move. As such, it is overall a bad thing. It is like the runners in a track contest trying to trip each other instead of running as fast as they can. In the end, everybody is worse off.

However much I like Apple and its wondeful innovations of the last decade, this behaviour is reminiscent of Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour like trying to kill other software platforms by starving them.

Apple should not fear cross-development. In the OS wars time, it never took off seriously because underlying platforms are different enough to make cross-development a niche player at best.

Native Cocoa apps will always be more up to date with respect to new iPhone OS features, they may behave better overall. Serious cross-developed apps will be difficult to make given the differences of the underlying platforms.

Apple: please don't become too focused on anticompetitive defensive moves!

I agree with what you said gctwnl.

This Apple isn't the same company that has garnered my respect since the eighties. I preferred it when they gave me choices, but in an intuitive way, where as now they seem insistant on making them for me.

And nice NEXT btw. :)
 
Of course, it would also give Apple 2 to 3 years to develop competition for the Creative Suite. Adobe would be risking a whole lot bigger percentage of their revenues in this fight. Apple could also partner with Quark to get a significant foothold.

I think if there is one company that Apple wouldn't partner with it would be Quark.
 
Apple: "Meowwwwww... HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!"

Proper determination to go to all-out war with Adobe it seems. I bet Adobe's equivalent "screw you" will be to withdraw Photoshop and other products from the Mac platform before long, should nicely kill off Apple's traditional 'graphics' business which is mostly Mac Pro and quite lucrative. Obviously not lucrative enough to keep Adobe sweet.

Stock holders of Adobe won't let that happen. Apple didn't lose money with their decision. But if it did and Apple said it is now a mobile company then Apple could just kill the Mac Pro and make up for the lost with other products.
 
I disagree. It all has to do with the bottom line. Flash ads in apps don't "contribute" 40% of the ad revenue to Apple. Flash games on websites don't "contribute" 30% of the app revenue to Apple. So Apple has blocked Flash on it's portable devices. It's really that simple.

If the same Flash app being played online for free was sold for free in the app store, apple would make no money from it anyway - 30% of $0 = $0. Developers can still use any non-flash ad system they want. Don't get me wrong, I hate ads as much as the next guy, but iAd blew me away. As an ad hating user, I won't use it, but I can see the appeal to both devs and advertisers.

Apple also allows the Kindle app, which competes directly with iBook, and streaming media apps that compete with iTunes. Your argument just doesn't add up.
 
I like seeing HTML5 arising, I don't really care about flash itself.

And still I don't get this endless moaning.
 
Opera Mobile is a completely different technology. The interpreted code isn't part of the app. It runs on Opera's servers, not the iPhone. The iPhone app part of Opera is just a remote viewer, similar to the dozens of X11, VNC and RDP apps and other streaming media viewers already in the iPhone App store.

Yes, I realize that, I was just thinking "out loud".
 
Nice, so much for Unity, Unreal Engine, and any other gaming engine that uses nonstandard scripting internally or ASM. :rolleyes:
 
Hrm, this is pretty draconian. I can understand performance concerns from an intermediary translator, but that should be resolved on a per-app basis as some translators might produce code that's plenty efficient, while other apps might translate poorly and have huge performance issues.

By disallowing the normal flash plugin Apple is already positioning HTML 5 as the preferred alternative for web-video, but disallowing flash/flex as a development tool for iPhones is really messed up. Did Adobe piss in Steve Job's cereal one time or something?

Javascript can run on most any platform out there, how about we get rid of that next?
 
You can flame me all you want, but Apple by releasing its new iPhone SDK to DELIBERATELY block Adobe's Creative Suite 5 iPhone generation app is in direct violation of antitrust laws in the USA.

Don't be surprised that Adobe sues Apple within the next two weeks over this, especially Apple's decision to block the use of Adobe Flash--even the newest, much-improved Flash 10.1--on any device that runs the iPhone OS.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top