OK, so now you're disagreeing with yourself
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/9825115/
Neither did I.
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
OK, so now you're disagreeing with yourself
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/9825115/
Neither did I.
Sorry, I'm not aware of other hardware platforms where a company is forbidden to take their intellectual investment and use tools they develop on their own or 3rd party tools to convert as much of that investment as possible to other platforms.
If Apple applies the agreement to Adobe but not to Unity, then obviously Apple is targeting Adobe (and there might be other players as well). Even if Unity does allow the use of JavaScript, it probably violates Apple agreement anyways. I do not know the details but the fact that they compile JavaScript AND C# into ARM code indicates that there is some metalayer in this architecture and this is explicitly prohibited by Apple.
BTW, here is a quote from Wikipedia about Adobe's scripting language: "More recent versions include ActionScript, an implementation of the ECMAScript standard which therefore has the same syntax as JavaScript, but in a different programming framework with a different associated set of class libraries. ActionScript is used to create almost all of the interactivity (buttons, text entry fields, drop down menus) seen in many Flash applications."
It looks like Unity's JavaScript is exactly the same animal as Adobe's ActionScript.
This is quite interesting and this start a chain of worthless news that neither I or any other person can resist.
This will then lead to a string or arguments, sleepless nights and kittens being murdered by domokun.
This will then lead to a string or arguments, sleepless nights and kittens being murdered by domokun.
OK, so now you're disagreeing with yourself
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/9825115/
Neither did I.
Excuse me, I was confusing you with cryonic.
Good news, and entirely as a predicted. I understand the European Commission is also considering similar.
Brown trousers time at Apple. And with good reason. What they've done is wrong, and I really hope this shocks some sense into them.
Phazer
Brown trousers time at Apple. And with good reason. What they've done is wrong, and I really hope this shocks some sense into them.
Phazer
Yes
If justice exists in this world it should smack Apple's botty rather hard here!
Saying that, I wouldn't dev for it in any case, not any more, so can't care less about final outcome...
In any case - bring it on please!
Yes how dare Apple take into account the users also wanting stable fast products, oh no we would not want Adobe feelings hurt on their half ass product.
There are far more developers out there that's strictly .Net developers and their Windows specific APIs skills aren't reusable either. So MS is being far more anti-competition for even creating .Net in the first place for their OS only.
If companies want to make money in the Apple's App store, they have to invest money to make money. That's how business goes.
So they are going to be sued for attempting to keep their own product more secure and more reliable. There are plenty of phone choices out there for consumers, and plenty of choices for the DEV's to develop for. This is not MaBell/At&T of decades past that owned all tele-services coast-to-coast. This is a consumer product of which you may choose to use it or not, develop for it or not. I sure hope all the haters on here do not win the right to make the iPhone less secure and less reliable. Especially when it is probably going to produce 100 rinky-dink apps for every quality app out there. Doesn't Sony have strict dev requirements for Wii? Nintendo? Etc?
But what would make targeting Adobe directly illegal? Home Depot is certainly allowed to refuse to sell any products from any manufacturer that it does not want to deal with.
The Reuters article quoted the opinion of the former FTC policy director. The article did not say that he was the source of the information about U.S. antitrust regulators considering an inquiry. So, by" official" I meant "Reuters" official which is much more official than "new York Post" official.
Agreed in that I can't think of an example that expressly forbids it either, though that's a different point then what you actually said before. I guess that's what you were getting at.
However, I think the lack of such examples is a bad thing, not a good thing. With a very few exceptions (like games), the right way to do a cross-platform consumer-facing frontend at this point is a web app. Which Apple allows and encourages. If you want to write a device-specific application, do it and take advantage of the best it has to offer by using its native development environment. If you want to depend on "middleware", at least depend on an open delivery platform (HTML and JavaScript).
Seems reasonable to me, given that the alternative is to let someone like Adobe entirely destroy the differentiation of the platform in question, and thus kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
They are not going to be sued for anything. If this is even true, NY Post are not to be trusted for anything, it's only an inquiry that somebody wants FFC/Justice department to investigate if Apple is breaking any laws or not. They'll find nothing.
FYI: WebGL is Adobe's biggest fear
Character animation is now available to WebGL.
http://www.ambiera.com/copperlicht/index.html
This has to be Adobe's worst nightmare--an open standard Game standard that leverages OpenGL via Javascript and will be integrated into all HTML5 browsers, exposed through the Canvas layer.
WebGL - OpenGL ES 2.0 for the Web
http://www.khronos.org/webgl/
Character animation is now available to WebGL.
http://www.ambiera.com/copperlicht/index.html
This has to be Adobe's worst nightmare--an open standard Game standard that leverages OpenGL via Javascript and will be integrated into all HTML5 browsers, exposed through the Canvas layer.
WebGL - OpenGL ES 2.0 for the Web
http://www.khronos.org/webgl/
and this "evil empire common knowledge" harmed them... how?
any harm done in recent years is due to their actual products being less than great, poorly designed, ugly, more difficult to use than osX etc.
"countless jokes" do not lead to fewer people using windows.
geeks are not relevant when corporations this size count their profits
"companies"? who do you mean? publishing houses choosing osX or linux rather than windows? hardly due to evil empire theories or countless jokes, rather due to easy of use and cheaper maintenance.
since we are talking about reputation, coolness factor, etc --> a company should fear its products getting a bad reputation, this alone will point consumers towards competitor's products. business practice? consumers don't care.
my colleague is delighted with her ipad, she doesn't give a damn about "antitrust regulations", "third party compilers" or "jason chens"
Adobe are a bunch of cat sniffers.
1. I was under the impression (This point I may be wrong about) that the Flash apps for iStuff were not to be compiled code. I was under the impression it was to be a Flash interpreter with the flash code built in. This is against Apples TOS.
2. Even if it was compiled code, Odds are 99 out of 100 it would have all kinds of libraries linked in, even if those Libraries were not used in that app.
3. Apples quality control software is designed to run on Xcode compiled apps. If Apple tried to run it on software developed using other compilers it would break.
Adobe has an easy out, Just have their flash software generate Objective-C code. Then let the user compile it on Xcode.
1. I was under the impression (This point I may be wrong about) that the Flash apps for iStuff were not to be compiled code. I was under the impression it was to be a Flash interpreter with the flash code built in. This is against Apples TOS.
2. Even if it was compiled code, Odds are 99 out of 100 it would have all kinds of libraries linked in, even if those Libraries were not used in that app.
3. Apples quality control software is designed to run on Xcode compiled apps. If Apple tried to run it on software developed using other compilers it would break.
Adobe has an easy out, Just have their flash software generate Objective-C code. Then let the user compile it on Xcode.
Apple is not for everyone.
Most of the objections to Apple's position on promoting quality Apple products on their new popular devices seems to be coming from lazy, incompetent developers. These trolls want to peddle their inferior programs on the growing market but don't want to invest the time and money required to learn and use acceptable development tools.
Apple took a huge risk introducing these devices and if the complainers don't like the Apple conditions, they are free to start their own products. Lord knows, the alternatives to Apple are dropping like flies so the opportunities for the whiners is huge.
Now the trolls are hoping the Government will help them exploit their lack of skills.
Most of the objections to Apple's position on promoting quality Apple products on their new popular devices seems to be coming from lazy, incompetent developers. These trolls want to peddle their inferior programs on the growing market but don't want to invest the time and money required to learn and use acceptable development tools.
Apple took a huge risk introducing these devices and if the complainers don't like the Apple conditions, they are free to start their own products. Lord knows, the alternatives to Apple are dropping like flies so the opportunities for the whiners is huge.
Now the trolls are hoping the Government will help them exploit their lack of skills.
Nope. This is expressly prohibited by Apple. The original SOURCE language must be one of C, C++, Objective C or JavaScript. I guess, for some reason, they hate COBOL
I have not yet had a chance to mess with Unity. I was under the impression that Unity generated code that was compiled by Xcode. Flash was directly generating a binary (Perhaps one with built in interpreted code.)
I don't disagree about Reuters vs NY Post, but typically the heads of federal agencies are legally constrained from mentioning current investigations or pending litigation, for many reason including that it influences stock market prices. So anything being said now is baseless and not official in any sense. Not to say it couldn't happen, just that there's no evidence.
Oh, really? I'd be interested to see you quote the relevant part of the license and how it applies.
No, it isn't. You need to read more than a paragraph on Wikipedia.
Nope. This is expressly prohibited by Apple. The original SOURCE language must be one of C, C++, Objective C or JavaScript. I guess, for some reason, they hate COBOL
I understand that, I do not see a problem with using third party visual tools to generate that source code. I guess it depends on what you call source code.
PS. I hate COBOL as well.
I'm sorry, but are you out of your mind? Enjoy the apps for what they are instead of going on a lunatic vendetta against what they were created with. If you need to ASK for what the apps are - then why would it matter to you as clearly you can't see the difference. And if there IS any difference it is probably a higher quality on these apps as the developer could dedicate more resources on the content. Right tool for the right job, you see.
Everyone - effectively prohibiting middle ware is like going back to the 70s where every routine had to be rewritten every time. Steve Jobs saying it's going to advance the platform is of course untrue.
Can you imagine the games industry without engines? Yes you could make your own but it is not time effective and the result would be WORSE than purchasing an engine that probably hundreds of engineers worked on.
The ONLY reason for this ban is this:
By disallowing cross compilers Apple is forcing developers to develop ONLY for the iPhone! If any app could easily be deployed on both iPhone AND Android then Android would catch up, but now Apple is pretty much forcing developers to pick a side, which naturally still is the iPhone.
Anything else is a lie, and it never ceases to amaze me that you are actually buying it.