Apple Facing Antitrust Inquiry Over Flash-to-iPhone Compiler Ban?

[twilson]

I do think that looking into the developer terms is a fantastic thing. I think developers should use whatever they're best at to create the program, and then change it into all the separate platforms.

Even to the detriment of a platform, and even if it doesn't translate that well. This sort of thing is only to evident when you see some of the "well written for Xbox360" graphical engines ported to the PS3. The code just doesn't translate as well, because the PS3 can't play all of it's fancy tricks due to the Xbox 360 having no branch prediction logic and the PS3 being able to better handle resource and task allocation itself. Those game engines (not looking at GTA IV..much) suck ass on anything but the original platform.

But...I'm not a programmer. So is there a specific reason not to allow the use of these third party apps besides simply maintaining the heavily controlled environment of the iFamily?

Yes, the third party layers which abstract the iPhone SDK APIs are actually hiding them from the developers (except for MonoTouch). Instead the APIs are hidden by a simpler, dumbed down, one-size-fits-all interface provided by Flash (in this case).

Also, I feel like I'm one of the very few who still likes Flash.

You are a dying breed, that's for sure

 

[marksman]

Yeah. I just can not believe that nobody found a flaw in Flash last year. So most likely the flaws are underreported. Probably for both tools. But this might be the only database that registers these things so it's clearly better than our own guesstimates.

Anyone smart enough to report a flaw with flash already hates flash, so they don't bother. They just turn it off or ignore it.

Plus how can you compare a plug in to the OS?

An OS is several magnitudes more involved than a web browser plug-in.

IMO, the topic of Flash dilutes the issue. The problem is that given the following hypothetical:

Program A: Written using Objective-C in the XCode IDE. Given more than a cursory once over, this particular app is riddled with a minefield of memory leaks and other issues.

Program B: Written using a forbidden language and then compiled into a 100% compatible iPhone OS executable app, tuned to run smoothly and efficiently by the compiler's author.

Program A passes inspection and Program B does not. This is the problem. Although I am inclined to believe Apple's official reasoning and that they aren't behaving this way simply to be jerks, I do think it undermines their message when the rules they say are in place to protect the end user's experience don't necessarily have anything to do with the end user's experience.

Since their issue with end user experience has to do with making sure developers are making use of the capabilities of the device they are programming for, I don't get your point.

In one case, regardless of what the author does, they are capable and able to get the most out of the device.

In the other example they can not, and will not ever be able to do so.

It doesn't matter if in one isolated example a flash-compiled cross-over is better than a native fart app, that misses the point entirely.

A developer making the same program with the same resources who codes directly for the iPhone OS will almost always end up with a superior product than if they did it with an external compiler and converted it over. That is the point.

They don't want developers doing the minimum amount of work, creating apps that are the same across all platforms and then have iPhone OS customers go, oh wow the programs are the same on the iPhone as any other device why do I need to buy it. They want app programmers making use of every possible advantage the device has to offer. They want people who will be programming specifically for the iPhone. If you don't want to program specifically for the iPhone, you can go generically write programs for all the other devices out there.

Apple wants that experience to be better.

 

[Mike Reed]

Since their issue with end user experience has to do with making sure developers are making use of the capabilities of the device they are programming for, I don't get your point.

In one case, regardless of what the author does, they are capable and able to get the most out of the device.

In the other example they can not, and will not ever be able to do so.

It doesn't matter if in one isolated example a flash-compiled cross-over is better than a native fart app, that misses the point entirely.

A developer making the same program with the same resources who codes directly for the iPhone OS will almost always end up with a superior product than if they did it with an external compiler and converted it over. That is the point.

They don't want developers doing the minimum amount of work, creating apps that are the same across all platforms and then have iPhone OS customers go, oh wow the programs are the same on the iPhone as any other device why do I need to buy it. They want app programmers making use of every possible advantage the device has to offer. They want people who will be programming specifically for the iPhone. If you don't want to program specifically for the iPhone, you can go generically write programs for all the other devices out there.

Apple wants that experience to be better.

The point I was trying to make is that it is not a guarantee that the user experience will be any different, or even better for that matter if you opted for Xcode rather than mono touch or something similar. It all depends on what the app is doing, and the quality of the tool and authored material. In fact, depending on the type of app, there is no reason for the iPhone experience to be any different than the android experience. A game of asteroids is a game of asteroids. Any phone more advanced than an atari will be very unlikely to choke on it regardless of the bloat a 3rd party compiler adds.

My point is that if their concern is the user experience then the rules should concern themselves with app quality - not the tools used to build it.

 

[tomccabe]

This wouldn't have been an issue if Adobe had simply approached Apple about the cross-compiler when they originally planned the functionality. Flash developers would have never started building applications for the App Store had Adobe not promised it without investigating it with Apple. Before Adobe's announcement, nobody expected to be able to build Flash applications for the iPhone. Flash performance isn't the only thing Adobe has handled poorly here.

+1. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that Adobe shouldn't be shocked that their big feature that they didn't confer with Apple on was squashed.

And to the commenter that likened the feature to WYSIWYG HTML editors...those editors make terrible code and HTML isn't even a programming language. It's probably the simplest language there is. I'd hate to see what percentage of unnecessary bloat is added to an app with Adobe's compiler. I for one am all for excluding Joe Flash Timeline from the App Store. And most AS coders for that matter. For some reason that language has the lowest percentage of quality developers.

 

[tomccabe]

How does Apple have a monopoly on the App Market? Do they prevent App makers from making products for other smart phones? No they just implement restrictions on their phones and app development.

The funny thing is Apple's policies seem to make them LESS competitive in their market if these Flash apps are oh-so-good and Apple won't be carrying them.

 

[tomccabe]

All Adobe has to do is demonstrate that their cross-platform product is capable of running a simple program as fast as one coded in Apple's development environment

That would be a short and futile demonstration for Adobe I would guess.

 

[DMann]

That would be a short and futile demonstration for Adobe I would guess.

Seems to be a reasonable performance benchmark.

 

[ranReloaded]

+1. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that Adobe shouldn't be shocked that their big feature that they didn't confer with Apple on was squashed.

They didn't go to Apple because they knew Apple wouldn't let them hijack the iPhone platform. So they forced their way in alone. Stupid move.

 

[tomccabe]

If i were a developer i wouldn't want to be limited in the tools i use to create applications.

They aren't. Developers are free to code for any device they wish.

As for the above "Apple wants its 30%", just take a moment to realize the opportunity Apple has given to developers to make THEIR 70% through a well run and trusted application store. All for a $99 fee! Sounds to me like it's been a beneficial situation to both parties. Quotes like the above as if Apple stepped into an existing arena and started exacting control and stealing money from developers is complete hogwash.

You keep a common code base in agnostic C++(no specific APIs) and a separate, "Deals with the OS" code base which uses the native APIs or wraps them to your taste.

Follow "Good Programming 101"??

That's essentially the problem with Flash and Actionscript. It's simply based on "can I make this thing fly across the screen and spin?"; the majority of its programmers (certainly not all) are done learning proper programming practices when they can get something to visually do what they want.

So if a developer write a small semi media heavy game in flash (the only viable way currently as HTML5's performance isn't sufficient), and would like to explore how it will fare on the App Store, the game developer will have to learn/rewrite everything in Obj-C. This might not be viable for that developer.

Then that developer is a FLASH developer and not an MOBILE APPLICATION developer. I'm a web developer, but I don't get upset because I can't write Mac apps in HTML/CSS/JS because I know that my skillset isn't viable there. This entitlement by Creative Suite users that they should be able to write an application for anything because they have CS is ridiculous.

If you can't justify developing for other platforms, don't do it. Anything else isn't competition, it's a handout.

+1000

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.

But they're made in tables and his site uses frames.

Apple is pretty much forcing developers to pick a side, which naturally still is the iPhone.

And naturally isn't illegal either.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I hope that Jobs comes to his senses before the FTC, the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, or (worse of all!) the European Commission's antitrust authorities start asking questions about Apple's programming clause on the iPhone OS 4.0 SDK.

Apple does NOT want to get into a spat with the European Commission, especially given how the EC harassed Microsoft for years over the web browser choice in Windows Vista and Windows 7 (EC forced Microsoft to include the "browser ballot" screen on the European release versions of Windows 7).

I think Jobs should find "common ground" with Adobe Systems and settle this amicably before Apple gets dragged into an ugly lawsuit that could take two to four years to resolve, tying up a lot of Apple resources.

 

[Surreal]

Then that developer is a FLASH developer and not an MOBILE APPLICATION developer. I'm a web developer, but I don't get upset because I can't write Mac apps in HTML/CSS/JS because I know that my skillset isn't viable there. This entitlement by Creative Suite users that they should be able to write an application for anything because they have CS is ridiculous.

You have a beautiful soul (as far as i can tell.)

 

[kdarling]

Adobe's tool will be perfect for home and business users

Even aside from the fact that Apple's new exclusion rule is clearly aimed at Adobe, not every developer sells their app in the Apple store.

A lot of us create iPhone apps for our own personal or friends' use.

We have a local Girl Scout Troop with a mother who's good at Flash... she can use Adobe to create little apps to be distributed locally using the 100 person dev license.

And of course, there is the enterprise segment with their own closed company apps... a market for iPhones that Apple would love to break into in a big way.

• App development ease is very meaningful to casual users.
• App development speed is very meaningful in business.

I read that Adobe is offering a limited demo download. I think I'll go see what kind of family apps I can make on it.

Just imagine: even non-programmers should be able to create little iPhone apps for their own use. I remember when Apple was about empowering people with tools like Hypercard. Those were the good old days.

 

[tomccabe]

You have a beautiful soul (as far as i can tell.)

Eh, don't give me too much credit

 

[Reed Rothchild]

Arrhhh... It's quite sweet to watch this Adobe presentation and see how excited they were about developing for the iphone. Little did they know that Jobs was just waiting until they released it before amending the T&C's. What a bizarre coincidence .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rebv7iXKufw

 

[ranReloaded]

But they're made in tables and his site uses frames.

OMG Failed to recognize that... My Apologies.

A useful link for the fellow: A List Apart.

My Advise is learn HTML5 as soon as you can. Fall back to XHTML1/HTML4 + Flash for DUMB Internet Explorer (less than 60% share and decreasing...).

 

[liorbk]

"antitrust" is bull

So price fixing, cartels, monopolies and slavery wages are good?
Apple is not Standard Oil yet, but don't let them get there.

 

[ranReloaded]

Then that developer is a FLASH developer and not an MOBILE APPLICATION developer. I'm a web developer, but I don't get upset because I can't write Mac apps in HTML/CSS/JS because I know that my skillset isn't viable there. This entitlement by Creative Suite users that they should be able to write an application for anything because they have CS is ridiculous.

Agreed. He should sell his flash games through the web and charge via (say) PayPal, like these people: http://machinarium.net/demo/

 

[tomccabe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rebv7iXKufw

And here's your brand new iPhone application compiled from Flash CS5...running on Windows Vista! Boy, Adobe sure knows how to screw things up.

 

[tomccabe]

A useful link for the fellow: A List Apart.

Always a gem!

My Advise is learn HTML5 as soon as you can. Fall back to XHTML1/HTML4 + Flash for DUMB Internet Explorer (less than 60% share and decreasing...).

To be honest I haven't delved into any HTML5 yet, but a lot of developers say it's exactly the opposite off all the things we've fought for standards & semantics-wise over the last several years. I literally could care less about working in HTML5 at this point so I don't know how much of it is true.

 

[ranReloaded]

Always a gem!



To be honest I haven't delved into any HTML5 yet, but a lot of developers say it's exactly the opposite off all the things we've fought for standards & semantics-wise over the last several years. I literally could care less about working in HTML5 at this point so I don't know how much of it is true.

Well, me neither but the possibility of delivering video without having to choose between 5 or 6 different methods to embed Flash (some not W3C validating, the rest with lower browser compatibility) and being able to cater video to the iDevices makes it appealing at least.

 

[tomccabe]

Well, me neither but the possibility of delivering video without having to choose between 5 or 6 different methods to embed Flash (some not W3C validating, the rest with lower browser compatibility) and being able to cater video to the iDevices makes it appealing at least.

Very true. I have a project coming up that I'm going to jump in and see if it can provide the solutions I would normally have both Flash/HTML versions of.

Of course all of the benefits are moot if your client needs compatibility with IE 6/7(/8?).

 

[tomccabe]

I thought this post from the Unity blog was worth posting over here:

I’m thankful that Unity and Apple will be having some conversations about whether or not they can get things to work out right. At the end of the day its highly likely that you guys will be able to make it work and I have been investing a lot of time and energy working with your technology and writing tutorials and such to help this community.

As for many of the other comments that I’ve seen, I assure you that Apple is far – VERY far from unique in this area. If you’ve ever done any professional game development for the major platforms, this type of activity is not exactly alien. That Apple didn’t impose some bigger “authorized middleware platform” program actually speaks volumes for the opportunity that Apple has made available to developers. Many of you probably have not been involved with console providers approving or rejecting your COMPANY from working on a platform because you didn’t fit their criteria for what a 3rd party developer should look like. I encourage you to openly apply for a console kit and see what a REAL walled garden looks like.

That said, it if unfortunate that Apple has changed the rules of how one can compete on its platform – but they, as others have mentioned, will do what they have to do to maintain things for the end-user and not for the developer. Apple has ALWAYS been that way – this is nothing new. Microsoft was this way with Java developers at one point though their goal was to engage the developers and tie them to their platform – which they accomplished with DirectX. Adobe was the same way with Flash, killing off developer attempts to reverse engineer the Flash player for YEARS before they finally gave up and released part of the technology as open.

From the business perspective this is a very clear example of building and protecting a platform and its ecosystem and it really shouldn’t surprise anyone. Its unfortunate, but it isn’t new, it isn’t exclusive to Apple, and in many instances it is far far better a relationship than developers (especially independent developers) have EVER EVER EVER had for a platform. If you disagree, I encourage you to find an open SDK for the Nintendo DS or the PSP and write code for their platform that you intend to sell in stores without their permission. Unfortunately, this is just the way of things. As indie developers, the best we can do is move to an alternate platform. Personally I have no intention of doing that because I’ve been around that space long enough to know that it never really gets “better” and in the interim all you end up doing is weakening your financial position and risking your business.

 

[cmaier]

Even aside from the fact that Apple's new exclusion rule is clearly aimed at Adobe, not every developer sells their app in the Apple store.

A lot of us create iPhone apps for our own personal or friends' use.

We have a local Girl Scout Troop with a mother who's good at Flash... she can use Adobe to create little apps to be distributed locally using the 100 person dev license.

And of course, there is the enterprise segment with their own closed company apps... a market for iPhones that Apple would love to break into in a big way.

• App development ease is very meaningful to casual users.
• App development speed is very meaningful in business.

I read that Adobe is offering a limited demo download. I think I'll go see what kind of family apps I can make on it.

Just imagine: even non-programmers should be able to create little iPhone apps for their own use. I remember when Apple was about empowering people with tools like Hypercard. Those were the good old days.

Apple's review process isn't involved in this sort of distribution, of course. Too bad adobe has little incentive to keep the tool going for this market - it can't charge $1000 for a drm-infested license for homes and scout troops.

 

[fmaxwell]

But the investigation isn't whether apple should let developers use the flash sdk but rather apple forcing developers to only use their own development tools. They are using their position to affect competitors and that's what the gov't is looking into. Its immaterial that flash sucks, but rather apple forcing out competitors in a manner that may be illegal.

The legality of it is affected by the motivation behind it. If the investigators were to uncover an internal Apple e-mail stating that the purpose of this was to force developers to make apps that could not be easily ported to competing platforms, that would have a tremendous bearing on the outcome of the investigation. Similarly, if Apple can show that the motivation was solely to get the best user experience for iPhone users, that puts the case in an entirely different light.

 

[coldplaysucks.]

Follow "Good Programming 101"??

That's essentially the problem with Flash and Actionscript. It's simply based on "can I make this thing fly across the screen and spin?"; the majority of its programmers (certainly not all) are done learning proper programming practices when they can get something to visually do what they want.

Thats such a good point, we are so visually oriented. It is not hard to imagine a programming team focusing on the visual side of an app when pushing something to market.