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

[whizpup]

I'm sorry... it's over the top

I'm sorry but when it was a simple phone, I couldn't bitch about what I could do or could not do. It was a very limited device.
When it became a smartphone...well now it's become less of a phone and more of a computer... and I certainly want way more control over my computer than I really care about for my phone.
Now.. with an iPad it has fully evolved away from being a phone and fully into a computer and since it is a computer I absolutely want to be "The Decider" as to what, when, where, who and why whatever software, plugins, etc. can be run on it.

One of my huge complaints with all OS's is the coders don't understand... In my computer's eyes, I need it to see me as GOD. It is the one case in the whole world where I want that title. When I hit a key stroke or a mouse input or anything, I want the system to come to full alert and listen to me... only me... I am your Master. All too often the system gives me the position of second fiddle, quite busy with it's own processes... and I fume when that happens.
Now my mom on the other hand has no such requirement... and I'm happy to give her the spoon fed OS version.
I for one don't want to be bossed around by my software or my hardware.

Sure Flash can be crappy.. so can my E Type Jaguar.
More than anything however... I still need to be The Decider..

 

[jragosta]

More than anything however... I still need to be The Decider..

And you can. As soon as you create your own phone and surrounding ecosystem, you can invite Adobe to support it.

However, given the fact that years after the advent of the smartphone that there is STILL no full version of Flash on ANY platform, don't be surprised if they fail.

All Adobe needs to do is have their tool write Objective-C or C++ code and let the developers compile it. I think tis is more targeted at Mono (which allows developers to code native iPhone apps using .NET and C#) than it does with Adobe and Flash.

Exactly. If Adobe created a Flash to Obj C converter, it would fall within the guidelines. It would still be a lousy way to code, but it would meet the requirements.

By your logic one may then argue that as a monopolistic company Adobe has to release their software for Linux, HP-UX, MVS, VMS, Maemo and all other operating systems. I wonder how come nobody sued them yet? Or is it just Apple that has such a privilege?

I never argued any such thing. Perhaps you should stop making up silly arguments.

The fact is that under US antitrust law, you are unable to leverage a monopoly in one market to build a position in another market. Adobe arguably has a monopoly in professional graphics software. They could not use that as leverage to leverage their way into the smartphone software market. That's about as open and shut as an antitrust case can be.

There's no requirement that they support every single OS out there. But once they are actively supporting an OS, they can not cancel it in order to build or maintain a monopoly in another market.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Did I say Quicktime API? No, I said GRAPHICS API, as in OpenGL, which is the only framework Apple supports. Since zealots like you just read one or two words and not the whole idea before responding, I'll bring up my case in point that I said I use my Mac a lot for: playing games. There's two games that I play that are available for OS X and Windows: Heroes of Newerth and World of Warcraft. I have the settings for both set the exact same, yet they always run a LOT more efficiently and smoothly in Windows as opposed to OS X. Why? The Graphics API is a bloated mess with way too much overhead. Personally, I wish Apple would somehow adopt DirectX, because their implementation of OpenGL is an ungodly mess in terms of efficiency.

Actually there are three Graphics engines for Mac OSX; X11 Graphics, Quartz (Postscript descendent) and OpenGL. Most 2D graphics in Mac OSX are rendered by Quartz and its a very very good rendering engine. It is considered better than Windows CGI.

I dont think anybody would pay for the licensing for DirectX. People tend to avoid making contracts with Microsoft now. Unless you want to end up like Novell or IBM. Apple's implementation of OpenGL is actually better than Microsoft's implementation of OpenGL (Which is crippled due to conversion from OpenGL -> DirectX) and Linux/BSD's which is inconsistent. Your bad performance is most likely from lazy coding.

 

[cmaier]

You're both wrong.

It could be easily argued that Adobe has a monopoly position in professional graphics. As a monopoly, they play by a different set of rules. If they were to arbitrarily drop the Mac version, they most certainly would open themselves up to antitrust complaints. In fact, using their professional graphics software monopoly to leverage Flash onto portable devices would be a crystal clear antitrust violation.

No, I'm not wrong. Even if it were an antitrust violation (and dropping a product would not be), Apple wouldn't have standing to do anything about it.

 

[SactoGuy18]

No, I'm not wrong. Even if it were an antitrust violation (and dropping a product would not be), Apple wouldn't have standing to do anything about it.

And in fact, Apple now runs the risk of being sued by Adobe using the US v. Microsoft case precedent. Remember when Microsoft included Internet Explorer starting with Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 in 1996? That inclusion seriously damaged Netscape to the point it got bought out by AOL. Apple's decision to shut out Adobe on the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad is pretty much the same thing, and Adobe could ask for a judgement against Apple that could run into the BILLIONS of dollars.

 

[Earendil]

And in fact, Apple now runs the risk of being sued by Adobe using the US v. Microsoft case precedent. Remember when Microsoft included Internet Explorer starting with Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 in 1996? That inclusion seriously damaged Netscape to the point it got bought out by AOL. Apple's decision to shut out Adobe on the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad is pretty much the same thing, and Adobe could ask for a judgement against Apple that could run into the BILLIONS of dollars.

Okay, my own feelings of who is right and wrong here aside, that is a huge logic/history/conclusion fail there. That is no where near the same thing.

First let's look at Microsoft, netscape, and history.
1. Microsoft Created an environment
2. Netscape built a product for that environment
3. Netscape's entire business (basically) was in that environment
4. Microsoft push's them out, effectively killing their business.

Now let's look at Apple and Adobe.
1. Adobe has multiple environments that it has business in
2. Apple creates a new environment
3. Apple doesn't let Adobe in on that environment from the get go
4. Adobe is not forced off a platform, and it's current business is not directly effected by it

Do you not see a difference there? Apple is not pushing them off the iPhone platform, because they never existed on it.

Nothing in any law says that Adobe can approach a platform, make flash available, and that platform MUST let adobe run flash on it. That would be stupid in the extreme.

And all that said, the iPhone-flash compiler is COMPLETELY different. What this thread was originally about has no parelles to Microsoft and Netscape.

 

[cmaier]

And in fact, Apple now runs the risk of being sued by Adobe using the US v. Microsoft case precedent. Remember when Microsoft included Internet Explorer starting with Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 in 1996? That inclusion seriously damaged Netscape to the point it got bought out by AOL. Apple's decision to shut out Adobe on the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad is pretty much the same thing, and Adobe could ask for a judgement against Apple that could run into the BILLIONS of dollars.

See, once again I'm going to object on the grounds of standing. As you yourself posted, the case was US v. Microsoft. Not Some-random-unhappy-company v. Microsoft.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I'm sorry but when it was a simple phone, I couldn't bitch about what I could do or could not do. It was a very limited device.
When it became a smartphone...well now it's become less of a phone and more of a computer... and I certainly want way more control over my computer than I really care about for my phone.
Now.. with an iPad it has fully evolved away from being a phone and fully into a computer and since it is a computer I absolutely want to be "The Decider" as to what, when, where, who and why whatever software, plugins, etc. can be run on it.

One of my huge complaints with all OS's is the coders don't understand... In my computer's eyes, I need it to see me as GOD. It is the one case in the whole world where I want that title. When I hit a key stroke or a mouse input or anything, I want the system to come to full alert and listen to me... only me... I am your Master. All too often the system gives me the position of second fiddle, quite busy with it's own processes... and I fume when that happens.
Now my mom on the other hand has no such requirement... and I'm happy to give her the spoon fed OS version.
I for one don't want to be bossed around by my software or my hardware.

Sure Flash can be crappy.. so can my E Type Jaguar.
More than anything however... I still need to be The Decider..

Why don't you take a look at linux then, if you need to be your computer's master.

 

[John.B]

And in fact, Apple now runs the risk of being sued by Adobe using the US v. Microsoft case precedent. Remember when Microsoft included Internet Explorer starting with Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 in 1996? That inclusion seriously damaged Netscape to the point it got bought out by AOL. Apple's decision to shut out Adobe on the iPhone/iPod touch/iPad is pretty much the same thing, and Adobe could ask for a judgement against Apple that could run into the BILLIONS of dollars.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up? You don't seem to have the foggiest idea what anti-trust does and doesn't encompass.

For starters, you do know that Apple doesn't have anything close to a monopoly in the smartphone market (let alone cell phones in general), right?

 

[CaptainPerverso]

If Flash developers would write half as crappy apps as Apple writes of their apps for non-Mac platforms THEN I can understand this move by Apple! Just have a look at iTunes for Windows.. it's the worst, sluggish PoS ever written! Just look at Quicktime Player, it makes me vomit! So Apple shouldn't throw stones at others while sitting in the glass house!

I wish that Adobe, Google and all others turn their back to Apple and then we will see how quick Apple goes down the drain again... just like before in the 90ies due to Steve Jobs' bigotry! Please let it happen!

 

[John.B]

Safari, iTunes, and QuickTime run just fine on the Windows PC I use at work.

I wish that Adobe, Google and all others turn their back to Apple and then we will see how quick Apple goes down the drain again... just like before in the 90ies due to Steve Jobs' bigotry! Please let it happen!

Steve Jobs wasn't at the helm when Apple was in financial straits. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_computer#CEOs:

• 1983–1993: John Sculley
• 1993–1996: Michael Spindler
• 1996–1997: Gil Amelio

He's widely credited with being the guy who put UX back front and center, and with bringing Apple back from the brink.

And I'm not aware of anyone who thinks Steve Jobs is guilty of any sort of bigotry. Are you even sure you understand what that word means?

(Nice third post, though...)

 

[MacGuffin]

Apple's corporate ethos is revealed here. More proof it is the new Microsoft.

Maybe something is also revealed about Jobs as he runs on borrowed time. He wouldn't be the first tyrant to want to sow despair for his perceived enemies with his last deeds.

 

[Earendil]

Apple's corporate ethos is revealed here. More proof it is the new Microsoft.

Maybe something is also revealed about Jobs as he runs on borrowed time. He wouldn't be the first tyrant to want to sow despair for his perceived enemies with his last deeds.

Man, that is like spot on A class writing, for someone trying to show that they don't know anything about history or current events, but loves standing strong behind a delusion-induced cause.

I mean, are you serious?

 

[JediZenMaster]

Apple's corporate ethos is revealed here. More proof it is the new Microsoft.

Maybe something is also revealed about Jobs as he runs on borrowed time. He wouldn't be the first tyrant to want to sow despair for his perceived enemies with his last deeds.

WTF are you smoking? Point Blank is this. Apple has the right to do what it's products. The same way you can jailbreak it. You people are soo blind. Tell me where the other mobile flash products? You Can't because there are none. There is a buggy 10.1 mobile flash beta that doesn't work well.

Personally i could care less about flash. The SW sucks. I've had to reinstall it so many times on both PC's and MAC's. Its not that great. HTML 5 seems more robust and streamline.

Now it sounds like you have a bug up your ass about apple i suggest you take care of it.

 

[RidleyGriff]

This stuff has gotten worse than discussing politics.

The problem is that the open source community has certain self-styled lofty ethical ambitions. Information wants to be free, everything should be open, etc. Noble, and not to be degraded.

This sentiment has been egged on by Google, a company that creates stuff and just gives it away. Everybody loves free. Of course, Google isn't really making anything for free. They're making it so they can sell your captive eyeball time to advertisers, and simply cloaking themselves in the guise of ethics. "Don't Be Evil"? Yeah, its not just a slogan -- it's a sales pitch.

The latter point hasn't really seemed to catch on with most yet, and software development seems to have become the great new hope.

Apple, on the other hand, creates great software to sell great hardware. Not that different from Google, actually, but instead of playing a shell game with you, Apple is just straight up enticing you to buy their products via the software they develop for you.

Obviously, this kind of business model doesn't work with licensing, complete openness, or anything of the like. It only works if they can differentiate their product and experience from everybody else out there.

If any of the people screaming about Adobe were honest, they would have to admit that if Apple stopped trying to differentiate themselves so vigorously, it would be the end of the company as we currently know it (remember how the Clone Experiment in the Scully days went? I thought you did.). And the end of Apple would also be the end of all the R&D and tech they bring to the marketplace, that apparently is so desirable the open-source supporters just cannot stand the fact that they can't use it while clinging to their sloganeering.

But nobody wants to admit any of this. Because then you get into this whole "personal responsibility", dealing with being a player in a marketplace, and blahblahblah. You know; the whole real-world capitalism thing.

Adobe, understanding the situation, hasn't tried to seek a solution with Apple, after slapping them in the face for the last 5 years -- nor do they even aggressively support Apple's other product lines as a show of good faith. No, what Adobe does is deploy "evangelists" to whip up the masses and make everybody angry at Apple for looking after their own best interests.

"Evangelists". Unsettling, when you think about it. I'll leave the -ism comparisons to others, but Adobe really should change that evangelist tag.

In the end, of course, as always, the market will decide. Apple provides a reliable experience that delivers almost 100 million (and growing) passionate users to date. Users that buy things through those Apple devices.

Will companies and developers leave that money on the table? Or will they ignore it so they can pat each other on the back for how ethical they think they are? Android Marketplace doesn't even remotely touch the App Store in terms of potential profitability -- how could it, it's a Marketplace created by those who think all software should be free! -- but that won't stop many for trying, I'm sure.

We will see. All I know is that the open source rhetoric has grown so loud one can barely think. It would really nice if everyone would just shut up, stop complaining about platforms, and just develop some great software that would decide this one way or the other.

Because as it stands, all the open source posturing and screaming -- without producing a better product in the meantime -- sounds like just one more empty promise. And the rest of us have work to do.

 

[SAPPete]

It's all business. It's funny to see fanboys of either side get overly excited, but it comes down to money. Apple, Adobe, AT&T etc etc do what they feel is in their best financial interest. I don't think either one would enjoy being sued by their shareholders very much.

The problem is, what's in a company's best financial interest is not always in the interest of their customers.

Take Apple's deal with AT&T. AT&T is a horrid, crappy, overpriced network. Apple is quite happy locking you in to this crap network, crippling iPhone functionality (tethering, 3G VOIP etc), because it is in their financial interest, even though it sucks for the customer. I suck it up, because I love my iPhone.

I find it equally annoying that there is no flash support. I wish I had the choice to use or not use flash apps or visit flash based web sites. The argument "We don't want to support it because it's a memory hog" is utter nonsense. Apple couldn't care less how much memory it uses. Here's to one more reason for people to upgrade to a iPhone with more memory.
"We don't support it because it cuts into our profits" would be more like it.

Apple is not some benevolent entity, however much the fans want to believe it (neither is any other for-profit business, though).

--------
Disclaimer: Employment history with Apple and Adobe

 

[Earendil]

It's all business. It's funny to see fanboys of either side get overly excited, but it comes down to money. Apple, Adobe, AT&T etc etc do what they feel is in their best financial interest. I don't think either one would enjoy being sued by their shareholders very much.

Agreed.

The problem is, what's in a company's best financial interest is not always in the interest of their customers.

However it often times is, even if the customer isn't always aware. The costumer is the one who makes those financial goals possible. Apple is prone to upsetting small segments of their customer base, notably techies and developers, neither of which are the majority part of their financial gains.

Too often I see this group (to which I am a car carrying member) confuse what they want and desire, with what the general customer base wants and desires.

Take Apple's deal with AT&T. AT&T is a horrid, crappy, overpriced network. Apple is quite happy locking you in to this crap network, crippling iPhone functionality (tethering, 3G VOIP etc), because it is in their financial interest, even though it sucks for the customer. I suck it up, because I love my iPhone.

Yeah... However you don't know what would have happened if Apple had set down it's demands in the beginning and said "All or nothing!". AT&T may have walked away laughing at this computer company that thinks they can make a phone, AND make demands.

I find it equally annoying that there is no flash support. I wish I had the choice to use or not use flash apps or visit flash based web sites. The argument "We don't want to support it because it's a memory hog" is utter nonsense. Apple couldn't care less how much memory it uses. Here's to one more reason for people to upgrade to a iPhone with more memory.

Did you work for both companies in sales? HR?
First, Flash eats volatile memory. This has never been a selling point for a phone, and they aren't going to start now.

Second, Flash also eats CPU cycles like a banshee. This actually is a selling point, but Apple can only ever put their fastest processor in there. I doubt they are doing much less than that. Besides, can you imagine that add?
"Now with processor X! Fast enough to even run flash!"

Third, you are assuming that there is a hardware option currently available that will "fix" Flash. Based on the lack of a full fledged version of Flash running on any mobile device, and how Flash runs on modern Desktop computers, I doubt that the hardware exists.

Apple is not some benevolent entity, however much the fans want to believe it (neither is any other for-profit business, though).

Agreed.

I'm glad we could start and end by agreeing with each other

 

[SAPPete]

Did you work for both companies in sales? HR?

Very funny.
I've seen Flash 10.1 perform just fine on several mobile platforms. No reason why it shouldn't work just as well with Apple's products if Apple wanted it to.

 

[JediZenMaster]

Very funny.
I've seen Flash 10.1 perform just fine on several mobile platforms. No reason why it shouldn't work just as well with Apple's products if Apple wanted it to.

And apple doesn't want flash. Its their platform if your don't like it 1) Buy another phone or 2) Whine to steve jobs and watch as he ignores you.

The average consumer doesn't want some buggy piece of SW on their phones. So unless you have inside access the only flash you saw was a pre-release version of that so called "Open screen project".

 

[Earendil]

Very funny.

I strive

I've seen Flash 10.1 perform just fine on several mobile platforms. No reason why it shouldn't work just as well with Apple's products if Apple wanted it to.

Yes, but that isn't full fledged Flash. Doesn't that tell you something that they have to limit and cut holes in their software to make it work on a mobile platform? And it's not as if mobile platforms are "slow" by any standard in place 5 or 6 years ago.

But we digress. The topic is of course whether Apple should allow lazy developers to use Flash instead of the native language and API's to produce software for Apple's platform. And on that, I'm with Apple.
Apple has plenty of iPhone/iPad developers without needing to lure in those people that don't have the brain/time to learn the language and set of API's that were designed specifically for the platform.

 

[bry2k]

This stuff has gotten worse than discussing politics.

The problem is that the open source community has certain self-styled lofty ethical ambitions. Information wants to be free, everything should be open, etc. Noble, and not to be degraded.

This sentiment has been egged on by Google, a company that creates stuff and just gives it away. Everybody loves free. Of course, Google isn't really making anything for free. They're making it so they can sell your captive eyeball time to advertisers, and simply cloaking themselves in the guise of ethics. "Don't Be Evil"? Yeah, its not just a slogan -- it's a sales pitch.

+1 to your entire post. I like people who have no reality distortion field, so long as they aren't Steve Jobs. (he's allowed)

I couldn't read all of the back & forth in this thread, but I would add, if it hasn't been mentioned already -- Adobe has access to the iPhone and Apple's iPhone market, via Dreamweaver. Actually, practically all of Adobe's products benefit from the iPhone, since probably 99% of the apps in the App Store had at least some portion of their graphics designed in an Adobe product.

Adobe needs Apple to create platforms for Adobe tools. Adobe is asking for a mile after having been given many inches if it seeks to impose Flash upon the iPhone without Apple's blessing.

If you're a developer / graphics professional / web designer, etc, then this policy is a good thing, because if your client A) Want Flash, and B) Wants to be on the iPhone, then they have to pay you twice to develop both versions. Double the work generally = more money...rarely twice the money, but certainly more, if you are worth your salt. In these economic times, a penny earned is a penny earned.

Flash is a legacy product. There was plenty of reason for it to exist before "Web 2.0", and therefore it gained massive market share. Flash's reason for existing is now waning, quickly. That's an indisputable fact.

If Adobe was smart, they would get in front of the future rather than cling to the past, but that is very, very, very hard thing for a company (or even an individual person) to do. It's hard to let go of what you already have and set your sights on something new.

I'm curious, does anyone have an informed opinion as to whether or not the new SDK policy adversely affects the RunRev revMobile platform?

http://www.runrev.com/products/revmobile/overview/

 

[PeterQVenkman]

what Adobe does is deploy "evangelists" to whip up the masses and make everybody angry at Apple for looking after their own best interests.

"Evangelists". Unsettling, when you think about it. I'll leave the -ism comparisons to others, but Adobe really should change that evangelist tag.

If you're talking about evangelists, in the tech world there are few more vocal than Apple evangelists. You could take your exact statement above, switch Adobe for Apple and vice versa, and it would still be true.

It could be easily argued that Adobe has a monopoly position in professional graphics. As a monopoly, they play by a different set of rules. If they were to arbitrarily drop the Mac version, they most certainly would open themselves up to antitrust complaints.

Nobody has sued Autodesk yet for their monopoly in 3d. I would call their software catalog "professional graphics" applications. Regardless, I think cmaier is the lawyer here. I'm betting what he bets.

 

[BaldiMac]

If you're talking about evangelists, in the tech world there are few more vocal than Apple evangelists. You could take your exact statement above, switch Adobe for Apple and vice versa, and it would still be true.

Adobe actually employs people to be evangelists. Does Apple currently?

 

[Slip Jigs]

I strive

But we digress. The topic is of course whether Apple should allow lazy developers to use Flash instead of the native language and API's to produce software for Apple's platform. And on that, I'm with Apple.
Apple has plenty of iPhone/iPad developers without needing to lure in those people that don't have the brain/time to learn the language and set of API's that were designed specifically for the platform.

Yeah, I'm going to have to go ahead and take exception to that. It reminds me of when I first started in web development with an early version of Frontpage,and took a lot of Flak from the "veteran" html hand-coders. Despite their techhie objectives, I created websites and they worked just fine. I can see where they were coming from - they worked hard at learning the code, and people come along with a visual tool and do the same thing with a fraction of the experience in a fraction of the time. Oh well!

That doesn't mean that they didn't have a point - many objections were valid, but for the most part, it wasn't the end of the world. That also didn't mean I was lazy either - I was just taking advantage of the resources available and worked hard just the same.

So now comes Flash CS5 with the ability to export to the native iPhone OS format. What's wrong with that? Nothing. If I can use a program that I know and am good at to do something, why learn another to do the same thing? One doesn't require more "effort" than the other to learn, or use. Do or will these apps really wreak havoc on your iPhone? I doubt it. In fact, there are apps in the app store right now that were created this way. Or at least there were, I don't know if they've been taken down or not.

I haven't heard a solid reason why this method for writing iPhone apps is inherently bad. Just vague things like, sometimes compilers can do this, and sometimes bad code can sneak in, and we want to ensure a set of quality standards, blah blah blah.

And what about all the apps now that have been created with the Apple SDK? Maybe it's me but I've never seen so many updates and bug fixes to programs ever. Even with software companies that are usually pretty good about things like that. Could it be that Flash created apps would actually end up being better - in both presentation and experience, and reliability and stability?

 

[Darkroom]

The topic is of course whether Apple should allow lazy developers to use Flash instead of the native language and API's to produce software for Apple's platform. And on that, I'm with Apple.
Apple has plenty of iPhone/iPad developers without needing to lure in those people that don't have the brain/time to learn the language and set of API's that were designed specifically for the platform.

assuming all Flash developers are "lazy" and only use timeline animation is like assuming all Objective-C programers only use Interface Builder.

you might want to read up on ActionScript 3.0 and the Flex SDK.