LLVM supports Just-In-Time optimization and compilation
■ Optimize code at runtime based on dynamic information
■ Easy to retarget existing bytecode interpreter to LLVM JIT
■ Great for performance, not just for traditional compilers
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Facing Antitrust Inquiry Over Flash-to-iPhone Compiler Ban?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LLVM supports Just-In-Time optimization and compilation
■ Optimize code at runtime based on dynamic information
■ Easy to retarget existing bytecode interpreter to LLVM JIT
■ Great for performance, not just for traditional compilers
So don't go. Developers aren't mandated or obligated to go to WWDC. Don't know why people are complaining about it, just whining doesn't do anything. Take actions. Stop going, make WWDC crap so that Apple would do something about it.
Small or independent developers can just stop coding for Apple and just go for Andriod, MS and others instead. Yes they'll make less money, but if they want to make more money, they have to put up with the stupid rules that Apple placed and put up with the stupid crap that Apple puts on them. Major development house continues to put up with Apple because their developers don't complaint mainly because the management pay the developers to do the job, period. It doesn't matter what the developers want.
It's the sixth and 'most-important' one according to steve jobs' thoughts on flash:
"We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. "
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
I'd say Apple's poor handling of developer relations caused these 'painful experiences'. Case and point being Carbon 64bit deprecations and recent surprise move on ban to third party compiler. I'm not saying that Apple can't do these things, but they should have been much more forth coming about their roadmaps.
i keep reading on these forums that apple needs to be careful about their image...
why?
does anybody think apple sell millions of devices because of some past, mythical underdog status that only tech people talk about, do you think the millions of iphone owners are "noticing" anything? do you think they even know who jobs is? i doubt it. most iphone, ipod macbook owners that i know haven't a clue and aren't interested. as long as apple makes "nice, cool" things -> people all over the world will buy them
most people i talk to about the gizmodo affair say "read something about it in the paper, don't know what it was about. heard the police confiscated somebody's computers. new iphone looks cool"
sure, people on these forums talk about it, but if none of us ever bought an apple device again -> apple would hardly notice, we do not have monopoly status amongst consumers
best
-B-
Better still, did it ever hurt even Microsoft? A fine from the anti-trust and all, they still own some 90% of the desktop PC market... And they've been the Evil Empire All Along.
Who knows, Maybe people are feeling sorry for the Vista flop and that's helping Windows 7 sales!
You must recognize that the sites he made for clients are quite orthodox and clean. People abuse Flash and other eye-candy technologies when they are free to. Real clients want different.
That only makes sense if Apple completely stop selling iPod. Apple still has a complete suite of iPods for sales and other companies still sell MP3 players. There's no abusing going around here. People aren't buying iPhones just for iPod feature. iPod is just an application on the iPhone/iPod Touch, and you can continue to download other music players like Pandora, WikiTunes, and so on.
Which isn't illegal or anti-competitive. Companies do have the right to restrict which environment to run on their devices. What they don't have the right is restricting such environment on every other devices or forcing other companies to only allow such environment or else.
Look at the game consoles as well. MS requires people to develop in XNA IDE in order to push their games for the Indle Marketplace. Others have their own stuff as well.
While a number of Apple's arguments against Flash as a whole are valid, preventing the use of cross-compilers is precisely the kind of thing that should land Apple in trouble. I mean, when it comes down to it they lower the barrier for entry to the iPhone, and while sure they may not support the latest iPhone features, or any features unique to the iPhone, they are nonetheless useful for the majority of apps.
If cross-developed apps don't support the features that users want, or supports the iPhone poorly, then the users themselves will take the app apart. If the code generated is inefficient (battery hog), or the integration is poor (unusual interface issues, poor usability) then that's a job for the approval process to weed out, but many apps built that way will be just fine.
If cross-developed apps don't support the features that users want, or supports the iPhone poorly, then the users themselves will take the app apart. If the code generated is inefficient (battery hog), or the integration is poor (unusual interface issues, poor usability) then that's a job for the approval process to weed out, but many apps built that way will be just fine.
For as much spouting off as you're doing, one would think you'd know Apple's licensing agreement, which says it needs to be "originally written in" C, C++, Objective-C or JavaScript. Which goes back to what I am saying about Apple is trying to dictate business practice.
My point is that there are two separate problems that he mentions in that sentence, and he doesn't say the former is more important than the latter. He didn't say, what you said he said. And again, did not mention "cross-compilers" at all, which is a word you must have picked up somewhere in a frothing blog post and started using though you're not clear on what it means.
They were clear about their roadmap for eight years prior to that announcement. Anybody banking future development on a 64-bit Carbon was an idiot of the first order, there is simply no other way to describe it. I seriously doubt any competent engineers at Adobe thought that waiting for it was a good move, it was purely a function of cheap and stupid management.
They were the underdog then. Ideally, they'd wish everyone embraced Cocoa since the beginning but they didn't have power to do so. Adobe had stabbed them in the back and slept with Windows, the new winner, but they needed Adobe (Not that they ported Ps/Ai to OS X very soon, either). So they settled for Carbon. Once they had the power to say no, the ditched the whole Carbon 64 project. Unfair if you like in terms of agreements/promises, but Adobe had it coming. Knowing their record I doubt they would have done the least effort to switch from Carbon32 to Carbon64, were it available.
Better still, did it ever hurt even Microsoft? A fine from the anti-trust and all, they still own some 90% of the desktop PC market... And they've been the Evil Empire All Along.
Who knows, Maybe people are feeling sorry for the Vista flop and that's helping Windows 7 sales!
Actually it did, Microsoft used to be the envy of the world. But as they got bigger and got more heavy handed in the 90s, geeks and companies turned against Microsoft. After several years of lawsuits and countless jokes, it became common knowledge that Microsoft is an evil empire.
The same will go with any company, same with Apple, if Apple isn't careful with its public relations.
Reed Rothchild
Now would be a good time for Apple to spread some love. They can't rely on the underdog tag any longer. People are starting to notice.
does anybody think apple sell millions of devices because of some past, mythical underdog status that only tech people talk about, do you think the millions of iphone owners are "noticing" anything? do you think they even know who jobs is? i doubt it. most iphone, ipod macbook owners that i know haven't a clue and aren't interested. as long as apple makes "nice, cool" things -> people all over the world will buy them
most people i talk to about the gizmodo affair say "read something about it in the paper, don't know what it was about. heard the police confiscated somebody's computers. new iphone looks cool"
sure, people on these forums talk about it, but if none of us ever bought an apple device again -> apple would hardly notice, we do not have monopoly status amongst consumers
best
-B-
I was thinking more in terms of developers, 3rd party companies, legislators. I agree the average consumer doesn't give a toss. Which is why it's important that the fourth estate and others keep their beady eyes on things
. Regulators can sometimes be good for the consumer (witness mobile telephony and comparable costs between the US and, well, everywhere else).
The controversial clause has been posted everywhere, but yes I know the agreement. I was just sharing my common-sense view of what Apple might be thinking. That is, who they'd really go after despite how much more scarier the actual text is. As for "dictating business practices", I don't know. I am a developer
If the law is to be followed, the justice department has no grounds to stand on in this case. For there to be an anti-trust case Apple would have to have a monopoly-which they don't. Adobe can still create products for Droid, RIM, Microsoft and even Palm if they should so desire. Just because Adobe wants to create a product of the hottest product out there- doesn't mean they have the right. This would be tantamount to the justice department going after Toyota because they refuse to put Sony stereos in there cars.
I don't think that is an attempt to dictate "business practice" per se. What they are saying is: "Our blessed API supports these languages. We want you to use our toolchain, especially our API, because if you use someone else's that will cause long-term damage to the platform. So these are the languages you can use. We're just assuming that Flash the Development Environment isn't going to augment ActionScript with Objective-C anytime soon, so this keeps out the aggressive attempts by other lock-in specialists to try to usurp our platform, while still probably giving us wiggle room to allow using toolkits like Unity that may be beneficial to the platform."
Use of intermediate layers, meta-languages etc. is just as good traditional software development techniques. Remember LEX and YACC? And what will you say if in the next revision of agreement Steve decides to ban the use of your technique as well? After all, when you have a highly portable core written in C++ you already compromise on quality because the platform specific layer is always designed as lowest common denominator between the targeted platforms. Application designed specifically for iPhone OS may, on the other hand, use the features that are unique for the platform and thus deliver better quality. Is not this what Steve is trying to achieve?
Apple chose not to allow cross-compilers, third party development tools or whatever. They have to live with the consequences of that. I don't see where they "should" get punished for that. Less developers means less revenue for them and less potential customers for them. Companies have the right to choose. If we start telling companies what they can't do (not directly related to laws), we'll be killing innovation and everything else that makes companies success. We have to let the free market decide for themselves.
I don't understand why everybody cares. If the developers want to make money, they need to learn the tools to do it and expected to take every possible advantages to do so. Apple isn't obligated to make it easy for developers to make money by allowing everybody to cross-compile.
Moments like this are why I love internet forums...
Maybe you can explain how LLVM is not a third party layer that comes between the developer and the platform? I would say it is, and a beneficial one at that.
But... Unity does not use any of the approved languages. I assume that it is automatically banned by this agreement then. And if it is not, then Adobe will have a solid legal case that Apple misuses the agreement to target Adobe specifically.