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

[ader]

I don't think that this action is aimed at preventing CS5 to export to iPhone.
As I understand it, using CS5 to author iPhone content would already have been technically banned as using Flash actually breaks the terms of the developer contract.

If Apple wanted to prevent developers using Flash to author apps all they had to do was ban that developer when they submitted something authored with it.

Thing is, a few apps built with CS5 beta were sneaked into the app store only because the app-store reviewers aren't geared up to check for (and ban them) - and probably because Apple already had this game-plan decided upon 12 months ago.

I've been using Flash since before it was called Flash - and it's great at some things on some platforms - it's been pretty poor for years on Mac and awful in it's implementation in a lot of places.

Before I got an iPhone I thought I wouldn't buy one until it had Flash - but when I bought one I realised I didn't need flash and that I could learn ObjC, make a career change and never have to use Windows again.

I reckon this is all about Apple wanting to further protect their IP, the app-store and their users experience. I think iPhone users will win and developers have a choice - use Apple's tools and have a nice life or stick to Android. Sensible developers can just drop Android porting etc. no big deal - it's not as if there's even an Android app-store of note anyway.

I do think this will reduce the number of developers for iPhone OS - and that it will improve the quality of the apps released while Android will likely be swamped full of rubbish.

I'm also happy as an AAPL stockholder, but I hope some cool guys like UT can find a work-around or get an exception as it's not great news for the little-man/indies...


a.

 

[John.B]

If Adobe has found a way to make software that people have coded in Flash run NATIVELY on the iphone, what is the problem? How does this remove from the end user experience? Because if it doesn't, then this decision is not good for anybody. It's just a byproduct of steve's petty animosity towards other large companies.

But it doesn't run natively, it runs in an runtime. If the Flash-to-iPhone compiler actually converted Flash to Objective-C there wouldn't be a problem. What actually happens is that your Flash script calls the runtime which then calls the Cocoa Touch APIs.

 

[anthonylambert]

The Main Story should be about existing frameworks!

Why does Adobe get all the press? They haven't even launched a product!

What about the likes of MonoTouch who have customers who have developed product and have it in the AppStore?

What about all the developers that have spent time and money developing using MonoTouch after Apple approved it.

What about them?

 

[twilson]

Now Apple just needs to block Ad-Mob/Google and let the iAd rule.

I doubt they'd do that. They don't really need to. All the benefits iAd offers over the boring, "quit to view" AdMob stuff. I think the devs will decide.

I've seen nothing close to iAd's that currently exists in desktop advertising, let alone in the mobile space.

As an iPhone dev, I'd rather use iAd, as it means it will be easier to reach the payment thresholds for a payout from Apple.

 

[SlowX]

Who cares HOW it’s done?

When you visit a great website that works and offers awesome content, who cares if it’s hand-coded, Dreamweaver or Front page? If you see an image that touches you, what difference does it make if it was done with Photoshop, PiantShopPro, or (gasp!) paper and pencil? When a movie seamlessly integrates CGI and live action, famous movie stars and stunt doubles, isn’t that the best?

However, when you can easily HOW things are done, the magic is lost: the website spits up SQL errors or links don’t go where they’re supposed to; the image looks more like a tutorial than something original; you can clearly see the difference between William Shatner and his stunt double.

I think the same rules should apply to the app store:

• If the app works well, has efficient code, and offers worthy (to someone other than the creator), then it should be allowed into the app store.
• If an app doesn’t do what it’s supposed, has inefficient code, or its content is unlikely to appeal to anyone but the creator, then it should be rejected.

What I see in support of Apple’s decision is fear and elitism: job may be lost; the time people took to really learn the language may be for nothing; control may slip from developers to others, so once again we’re not in charge. We’ve seen it so many times before, and Flash is one of the best examples of “creative” people “taking a stab” at programming, not realizing that they’ve punctured a major vein.

What’s worst is that Apple has the right to do this, IMHO. It’s their party, so they can cry “no cross compilers” if they want to. But it feels like such a frightened, controlling path to take.

I hate it when Apple’s isn’t cool.

Meanwhile, you ready-to-go native-developers, I humbly ask that:
You make no more apps with the word "fart" in them
Consider working with designers, artists, musicians or other non-developers (unless, of course, you ARE the true Renaissance Man)
Most importantly, amaze us non-developers.

 

[hexor]

Sorry

Sorry but every app that I have seen on Mac OS X using some cross-platform framework just sucks. If you were to start building apps on iPhone using this Flash framework they would also most likely look bad.

On top of that for anyone to update their apps to use newer APIs they would have to wait until after whoever developed the cross-platform framework update their framework to expose the new APIs (if ever). If you relied on Apple's framework you would have instant access to these APIs. So in general these frameworks would promote a degraded experience for any App using these cross-platform frameworks.

 

[MH01]

Umm, you need to go back to ECON101, because most businesses by your definition are selfish.

Ummm, Economics 101??? I think its your "definitions" that are confused.

 

[diamond.g]

But it doesn't run natively, it runs in an runtime. If the Flash-to-iPhone compiler actually converted Flash to Objective-C there wouldn't be a problem. What actually happens is that your Flash script calls the runtime which then calls the Cocoa Touch APIs.

But Adobe says it runs natively?

Are applications for iPhone built with Flash Platform tools interpreted at runtime?
No. iPhone applications built with the Packager for iPhone are compiled into standard, native iPhone executables, just like any other iPhone application.

 

[iSee]

...The only Flash devs who have been using this are using the Flash CS5 beta. Timing being everything, Apple announced this change before Adobe had a shipping product (just before).
...

I don't mean just the Flash CS5 beta devs.

E.g., the guy I was responding to is an individual developer who had spent months developing an app using Unity. Apparently, that app will not be allowed. All that effort and creativity will be wasted.

I realize there is no shortage of iPOS apps. But developers, whether individuals, small dev houses or large companies, have come to realize that Apple can pull the rug out from underneath their development plans at a moments notice. There are developers who will loose hundreds of thousands of dollars (and more) due to the work they'll have to dump.

This has got to drive developers away from iPhone development. I'm not just talking about this particular clause. I actually think this will be good for the quality of apps. But Apple has a long track record of doing this. It has to be affecting the apps produced. Some developers will walk away entirely. Some will scale back the scope of their projects to reduce their potential losses if Apple does kill their app. I.e., developers will only invest what they can afford to loose, which means the apps they produce won't be worth a damn.

 

[kingtj]

Quit with the FUD .....

As a faithful Apple user and fan, I think this is nothing but a "dick move" on Apple's part -- and actually, I think it crosses the line into the area where a lawsuit from Adobe might even be warranted.

I have *no* problem with Apple deciding they'd rather take a pass on offering certain functionality in their devices (such as Flash). They make a good argument that skipping it, to further HTML5 development in its place is helping push better technologies forward. (After all, Flash is a proprietary product you have to pay money to Adobe for a tool to create the content with. HTML5 is an open standard where plenty of freeware content creation tools will surely appear.)

But purposely modifying their existing code to break a competitor's attempt to work around your limitations in what was a non EULA-violating manner initially? That's just plain hostility. (What if Adobe redesigned the PDF format so the newer PDF files wouldn't open anymore inside OS X Preview? How "fair" would that move be?)

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

 

[zweigand]

People hating on Apple for this move, look at this perspective From a Flash dev (nice call he makes in the last couple paragraphs …people should have seen this coming)

PS. I can't code for the iPhone/iPad in AppleScript either…

 

[Augure]

First, I Like this post.

Originally Posted by AdLib View Post
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/new...1#comments-bar

Again, truth speaks, and even obvious facts and numbers help.

Second: And WHAT IF Adobe adresse all the bloating and memory hog issues...?

 

[twilson]

STOP ARGUING.

It's obvious: Apple is BSing people on the Flash matter, only the iSheep agree with them.

1. Fact: HTML5 is more stable. Other Fact: Only 8% of users can use it. Other Fact: You can't do half what you can do with Flash. Other Fact: W3C has not even made HTML 5 a ready standard.

Fair enough on that one.

2. Fact: 75% of videos, 80% of games, (90% of ads) and tons of websites are in Flash.

Seeing as YouTube/Google Video/Vimeo and most video sites also do HTML5/iPhone video and count for probably > 90% of video, that "fact" of yours is rather irrelevant. And I don't give a crap about ads.

3. EVERY other mobile plateformes are compatible with Flash.

A lot, but by no means EVERY.

4. Who the hell is Apple to tell the hundreds of thousands of pro's who CHOOSE to use Flash, not to ?

They are the creator and guardian of the iPhone platform, that's who they are. If a dev doesn't like that, they are entitled to go and develop for a less successful platform if they like.

And a point of note, Microsoft don't let me write pure C++ for WinMo anymore, you used to be able to, it's .Net or bust now.

It's also not possible to deploy a native flash app to a Windows Mobile device (it would have to be browser based).

So yes this is BS, period. Anyone who says otherwise is a effin jobs c**ks*cker and hypocrit. This is the difference with true speaker or fan: I have to agree on the fact that Adobe's software are bloated as hell.

Maybe, but you're just an ill informed ideologist, at best!

 

[twilson]

First, I Like this post.

Again, truth speaks, and even obvious facts and numbers help.

Second: And WHAT IF Adobe adresse all the bloating and memory hog issues...?

It still wouldn't change the fact that Apple would be losing control of their platforms progress by allowing it. So, no change in Apple's stance really.

All Apple's stuff is successful and delightful to use BECAUSE it is controlled. The sooner the idiots realise this, the better.

Shut you whining and go back to your crappy, less successful platforms.

 

[Compile 'em all]

Why does Adobe get all the press? They haven't even launched a product!

What about the likes of MonoTouch who have customers who have developed product and have it in the AppStore?

What about all the developers that have spent time and money developing using MonoTouch after Apple approved it.

When/where did Apple "approve" monotouch?

Monotouch devs fate is the same like those of Adobe: Offside!

 

[Enuratique]

How is wanting your code to be transferable to several systems wanting something for nothing? Why is that in any way an unreasonable desire, that the same software does not have to be re-written several times over in order to work across different platforms? The reasoning that you fanbois use to justify Apple's Big Brother decisions just boggles the mind.

Because, as far as I'm aware you either start writing software knowing what platforms it targets or you write natively... Disclaimer: I am a professional developper. If you start your program in Java, great - you chose that because it is cross-platform. Where I draw the distinction is the expectation that Apple support Java on the iPhone. Sure, I'd love to not have to duplicate effort, if at all possible... But I knew going into iPhone development that it was their way or the highway.

Before defending this decision, ask yourself: In what way will this make the end user experience better?

Uhhh... Things run better because they aren't having to be interpreted just-in-time... When new features are added, they can be supported immediately, instead of waiting on Adobe to support them - if they do at all. What incentive does Adobe have to support a fingerprint reader when only the iPhone has it and all the other platforms don't?

If Adobe has found a way to make software that people have coded in Flash run NATIVELY on the iphone, what is the problem? How does this remove from the end user experience? Because if it doesn't, then this decision is not good for anybody. It's just a byproduct of steve's petty animosity towards other large companies.

Eh, my understanding is that it is still not running natively... It is precompiled to an interpreted language, which is an improvement but not the same as compiled to the bare metal.

 

[hh83917]

People hating on Apple for this move, look at this perspective From a Flash dev (nice call he makes in the last couple paragraphs …people should have seen this coming)

PS. I can't code for the iPhone/iPad in AppleScript either…

Nice read, I guess that's some Apple's tough love for Adobe if you look it that way.

 

[ranReloaded]

But it doesn't run natively, it runs in an runtime. If the Flash-to-iPhone compiler actually converted Flash to Objective-C there wouldn't be a problem. What actually happens is that your Flash script calls the runtime which then calls the Cocoa Touch APIs.

You mean that the "binaries" (to call them something) published by CS5 are actually a bundle consisting of a native (ARM machine code) "Flash Interpreter" and a "Payload" Action Script Code?

I thought Adobe was compiling everything right into iPhone machine code (still, the use of "Third party tools" is prohibited in the clause), bypassing Xcode/Objective-C to obtain a similar -yet less optimal - result; but their output executable is actually performing some runtime A.S. execution?

 

[twilson]

Please, Apple, provide a reasonable explanation.

I believe this thread has provided you with hundreds of answers to the question, most of them quite reasonable.

Loss of platform control, development uptake etc. being the most important and valid reasons I can think of.

 

[John.B]

As a faithful Apple user and fan, I think this is nothing but a "dick move" on Apple's part -- and actually, I think it crosses the line into the area where a lawsuit from Adobe might even be warranted.

Interpreters like Java have always been forbidden. How is this not an interpreter, albeit a very specific one?

I read this as just clarifying an already existing policy.

 

[John.B]

You mean that the "binaries" (to call them something) published by CS5 are actually a bundle consisting of a native (ARM machine code) "Flash Interpreter" and a "Payload" Action Script Code?

I thought Adobe was compiling everything right into iPhone machine code (still, the use of "Third party tools" is prohibited in the clause), bypassing Xcode/Objective-C to obtain a similar -yet less optimal - result; but their output executable is actually performing some runtime A.S. execution?

Everything I've read about this says that the Flash-to-iPhone compiler creates a package which translates Flash script to Cocoa Touch API calls. How could it do anything else, as Cocoa Touch is the only way I know to write iPhone apps (though I suppose you could write your own version of Cocoa Touch -- at great expense, and with serious compatibility risks).

If Adobe can do that, then they can generate actual Objective-C code which would call the Cocoa Touch APIs natively and that would compile normally. Code generators are nothing new. Though IMO more than a few Flash developers might need to learn their way around an IDE to get that far. If anything, Adobe is probably farther along than anyone else to jumping this hurdle. It just depends how important this exercise is to them (which is more about marketing Flash than anything else).

 

[Bytor65]

This isn't even new to people familiar with the previous SDK language.

It dead clear that anyone using alternate frameworks were operating in a gray area at best, because they were operating in violation of even the older SDK wording. This new wording is only a slight variation on what was already present and no actual change in intent.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/11/iphone_sdk_may_block_firefox_java_background_apps.html 2008


"No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Published APIs and builtin interpreter(s)," Apple says in the agreement. "An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise."

This is nothing more than a clean up of existing language, but in current media frenzy, it is mocked up into another "pro wrestling" style, end of the world drama...

 

[ranReloaded]

Uhhh... Things run better because they aren't having to be interpreted just-in-time... When new features are added, they can be supported immediately, instead of waiting on Adobe to support them - if they do at all. What incentive does Adobe have to support a fingerprint reader when only the iPhone has it and all the other platforms don't?

Also, things run better because on a higher level, the application is designed with the native APIs in mind from the start, it knows what services to expect and at what cost, the programmers can exploit the different costs of each operation in their decisions.

By contrast, the interpreter will be constantly asking the iPhone OS for "the closest thing you have to XX or YY functionality", and the developer will have designed their code based on other platform's assumptions (e.g. the relative cost of operating on floats, addressing arrays, playing sounds, etc).



There is no gain with a "man in the middle". Devs have to grow up and get to know their tools and environment, the "Code once, run Everywhere" mantra is BS. At the very least is relies on bloat. Performance will always be an issue. Adobe thinks different and they always find a way to fill your CPU/Memory with their next release of CS. Well, I buy better hardware to accomplish more, NOT because I want to stay in 1996 while making their lives easier.

 

[Earendil]

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.

Funny, I read your first paragraph and thought "I listen to radio shows!". And sure enough, you do too, and NPR, just like me. But it baffles me that you would use NPR as your example. See I listen to Radio programming, but not VIA radio. I podcast that stuff straight to my iPod. This allows me:
1. Better quality sound
2. Ability to pause
3. Doesn't cut out in tunnels
4. No NPR breaks where they ask for money

And what's this about Radio having all the new music? To me, "new" music is music I haven't heard before. The radio will generally repeat the same couple songs form on this on end. Hardly progressive. No, my friend, you should look into "Pandora". Or heck, stick your music library on shuffle. Far better than the radio

The only time I wish I listened to the radio, is when I approach a friend with a new artist that I think they'll like, and they respond with "They were sooo over played on the radio last year". This bugs me for approximately 2.3 seconds before I move on, happy to be living in a world where the radio's choice of music does not ruin songs for me.

 

[rb4havoc]

After reading the comments posted in this article, I can definitely say one thing. A lot of the mac fanboys don't live in the realm of reality. Don't get me wrong--I've used Macs since 1987 and would prefer to get a Mac over a PC any day, and when they finally decide to refresh the MBP line, I'm going to get a new iMac, MBP and Air if those get refreshed as well, so I'm definitely loyal to the Apple brand. I'm just not a friggin zealot like some of these tards are.

Flash isn't as much of a memory hog as Jobs is making it out to be. In fact, there was a speed test done, and basically the results of that speed test conclude that if Flash was given hardware acceleration on the Mac side of the house, then it wouldn't be the resource hog Jobs is claiming it to be.

What still irks me, and this is a bit off topic, is that they claim Flash is such a resource hog, but Apple's own graphics API is so bloated, you can actually see a difference in how it runs on OS X vs. Windows. Until Apple fixes that API and makes my computer useful for over half of what I use it for (gaming), it'll continue to start up in Windows 7 only.