Apple has been there and done that. Ever hear of "Universal Binaries"? They ran on G4, G5, and Intel chips. One click in Xcode and you're done.
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 Opens App Store to Third-Party Development Tools, Publishes Review Guidelines
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple has been there and done that. Ever hear of "Universal Binaries"? They ran on G4, G5, and Intel chips. One click in Xcode and you're done.
And I might add that if you look at the license agreement private APIs are still bared, data gathering is still "only to provide a service or function that is directly relevant to the use of the Application, or to serve advertising" and data collection has to be announced prior to the user.
Adobe's development strategy is inefficient
Perfectly said. Cross-platform development tools were a good idea back in the day when things were simpler. I know. I used to work at a company that did the same thing (and was ultimately bought by Adobe.) You created your own GUI, then generated code for the different hardware. Of course, that meant your GUI dropped down to the lowest common denominator among all the platforms you supported, but that was OK. GUIs were pretty simple. The major differences were beveled edges vs. non-beveled edges.
Not any more. Do you think it's easy to fake an iOS interface and fake an Android interface with a generalized IDE? Is it still easier to cross-compile apps to handle the various real multi-touch from Apple as well as the hastily hacked and crowd-sourced multi-touch from, say, Android? Nope. Sorry.
Also, over the past decade, Apple has learned that Adobe is very slow to adapt to new Apple technologies. And with the rapid rate of development in the mobile space, Apple needs to stay agile to keep ahead of the inevitable stampede of mindless iCloners.
Apple can't and won't wait around for Adobe to wake up and get moving every time Apple advances their hardware and software. Nobody should.
Perfectly said. Cross-platform development tools were a good idea back in the day when things were simpler. I know. I used to work at a company that did the same thing (and was ultimately bought by Adobe.) You created your own GUI, then generated code for the different hardware. Of course, that meant your GUI dropped down to the lowest common denominator among all the platforms you supported, but that was OK. GUIs were pretty simple. The major differences were beveled edges vs. non-beveled edges.
Not any more. Do you think it's easy to fake an iOS interface and fake an Android interface with a generalized IDE? Is it still easier to cross-compile apps to handle the various real multi-touch from Apple as well as the hastily hacked and crowd-sourced multi-touch from, say, Android? Nope. Sorry.
Also, over the past decade, Apple has learned that Adobe is very slow to adapt to new Apple technologies. And with the rapid rate of development in the mobile space, Apple needs to stay agile to keep ahead of the inevitable stampede of mindless iCloners.
Apple can't and won't wait around for Adobe to wake up and get moving every time Apple advances their hardware and software. Nobody should.
The native language is ARM machine code.
I believe that game developers prefer to write games instead of 3D engines.
If I need a database for something, I take one off the shelf. I don't code it from scratch.
If you want to compete with someone fairly, you do it by creating a better product. If Apple want people to stop using Unity, make a better Unity. Don't try to push people out by other means. Competing by other means is what Microsoft have been doing for years.
Monotouch implemented every new API before Apple released iOS 4. They did this because they want business. If they don't do it, people will stop coding in MonoTouch because their customers will not buy their obsolete apps.
Who cares (BTW, Apple took years to rewrite to Cocoa as well)? Adobe should be allowed to compete. If they suck then developers will stop using their products because customers will not buy their products.
Capitalism. It works.
AdMob ads are OK. AdMob analytics are NOT OK.
Right again. Here's Google's attempt to put a happy face on the loss of any AdMob analytical data from iOS devices:
AdMob ads themselves were never banned. Google can still place ads in iOS apps and charge their advertisers for the privilege. But they won't know how many eyeballs are on those ads, or how many times customers click through, or how long customers spend looking at the ads.
Those are critical metrics that Google/AdMob would kill for. All gone on iOS, and there's nothing Google can do about it. Apple, of course, has full access to those analytics. Which means they can charge more for iAds because they can provide critical analytics to their advertisers that AdMob can't.
Here's the actual language from section 3.3.9 of the App Store License Agreement:
Oh, and there's one more thing. If anybody thinks it's unfair that Apple shuts out AdMob analytics, just ask Google if they would allow iAds on Android that send analytics back to Apple. (You get one guess what the answer would be.) If Apple gets any actual heat from the government in regard to protecting their iOS ad-space turf, Apple can turn around and ask Google to open up Android to iAd. BOOM.
Right again. Here's Google's attempt to put a happy face on the loss of any AdMob analytical data from iOS devices:
AdMob ads themselves were never banned. Google can still place ads in iOS apps and charge their advertisers for the privilege. But they won't know how many eyeballs are on those ads, or how many times customers click through, or how long customers spend looking at the ads.
Those are critical metrics that Google/AdMob would kill for. All gone on iOS, and there's nothing Google can do about it. Apple, of course, has full access to those analytics. Which means they can charge more for iAds because they can provide critical analytics to their advertisers that AdMob can't.
Here's the actual language from section 3.3.9 of the App Store License Agreement:
Oh, and there's one more thing. If anybody thinks it's unfair that Apple shuts out AdMob analytics, just ask Google if they would allow iAds on Android that send analytics back to Apple. (You get one guess what the answer would be.) If Apple gets any actual heat from the government in regard to protecting their iOS ad-space turf, Apple can turn around and ask Google to open up Android to iAd. BOOM.
I could argue back in the day cross plateforms complilers were not as good compared to now.
Today memory is cheap and processing power is very high. These means that you can afford a lot more overhead in your code with out sacrificing much if anything at all.
for example 15 years ago 32 megs (yes megs) of ram was considered good. Now it is common to have 2 gigs+ in a computer. My laptop has 6 gigs or ram. That is more than the entire hard drive of the computer I had in 1995.
People get on Adobe for not switching over to Cocoa well that cost a lot of money and time to make a switch on something that big and what they gained was marginal compared to the amount of money and time that was spent. They choose no to for a long while because they could make more gains for less money and time. Apple lied to everyone and promised 64bit carbon and then changed their mind last minute screwing over big players and in the end delayed the switch to 64bit and the changed over to cocoa.
Remember now days memory is cheap, processing power is cheap. Our cell phones have more memory, and processing power than our desktops from 10-15 years ago.
Look people apps do not have to be Epic style 3D games. There are plenty of apps out there made in Xcode that really do not do very much. I make a lot of Flash content that doesn't really animate so in terms of app performance it should be transparent. For example lets take a hidden object game.
In terms of programming this is pretty easy with very little animation or ever changing tiles. A Flash based app would be totally transparent compared to one that was created with Xcode.
So what would work well using Flash to publish apps?
1. turn based RPG's.
2. Tile based adventure games
3. Side scrolling games made with tiles.
4. Card games.
5. Board games.
6. Strategy games.
7. Accelerometer gimmick games. (guide the ball in the hole sort of things)
8. app versions of web pages.
9. Store front apps (in the place of using a web page)
10. Artist portfolios.
11. Internal company apps.
12. Productivity apps.
13. Basic art and design apps.
14. Video streaming apps.
What apps may be a bad idea with Flash?
1. 3D games.
2. Very complex action games.
3. Anything that needs a lot of processing power.
In terms of programming this is pretty easy with very little animation or ever changing tiles. A Flash based app would be totally transparent compared to one that was created with Xcode.
So what would work well using Flash to publish apps?
1. turn based RPG's.
2. Tile based adventure games
3. Side scrolling games made with tiles.
4. Card games.
5. Board games.
6. Strategy games.
7. Accelerometer gimmick games. (guide the ball in the hole sort of things)
8. app versions of web pages.
9. Store front apps (in the place of using a web page)
10. Artist portfolios.
11. Internal company apps.
12. Productivity apps.
13. Basic art and design apps.
14. Video streaming apps.
What apps may be a bad idea with Flash?
1. 3D games.
2. Very complex action games.
3. Anything that needs a lot of processing power.
Adobe is allowed to compete. Always has.
Apple never said Adobe couldn't use Xcode to develop their apps and compete. Apple's fear was that Adobe would develop must-have apps for iOS and that Adobe would continue to take months or years to update their apps after Apple has advanced their hardware and/or software.
Evidently Apple isn't afraid of Adobe holding them back any more. Or maybe they just don't need Adobe apps to drive sales of iOS devices. Apple certainly doesn't need Flash to sell iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads.
Apple never said Adobe couldn't use Xcode to develop their apps and compete. Apple's fear was that Adobe would develop must-have apps for iOS and that Adobe would continue to take months or years to update their apps after Apple has advanced their hardware and/or software.
Evidently Apple isn't afraid of Adobe holding them back any more. Or maybe they just don't need Adobe apps to drive sales of iOS devices. Apple certainly doesn't need Flash to sell iPhones, iPod touches, and iPads.
Of course they would. In fact, Google has no way of prohibiting it.
Again, as long as Apple has the superior product, the competition doesn't matter. The only situation where Apple gains from these anticompetitive practices is when they don't.
Flash? There's a museum for that.
#3 is what is killing Flash in the mobile space. It's a CPU hog, which means it's a battery hog, which means people will complain about their Android phones. Or is that "phone" singular? I hear only one Android phone actually runs Flash 10. The one that can actually run Fragdroid 2.2. Oops, did I say Fragdroid?
#3 is what is killing Flash in the mobile space. It's a CPU hog, which means it's a battery hog, which means people will complain about their Android phones. Or is that "phone" singular? I hear only one Android phone actually runs Flash 10. The one that can actually run Fragdroid 2.2. Oops, did I say Fragdroid?
I think the problem was that the policies would potentially hurt Apple in the long run because they applied to products that makes iOS attractive to developers (Unity is the canonical example, I believe). Apple shouldn't really create incentive for developers to move over to Android. Had Android not existed, it would have been quite a different story.
But again you are talking about the Flash browser plugin not a native ios app which is what Flash can do.
The Flash apps are translated into native apps. They may not be as fast as Xcode apps but they can be lightyears faster then plain Flash files. The flash exporter for apps even has hardware gpu support for the ios devices which means most of the graphics and animation run in the gpu just like the Xcode based games. Now the only problem with the Flash method is that everything may not be 100% optimized or translated. So if on a performance scale Flash itself is a 10 and Xcode is a 100 I would expect Flash apps to be about a 70 or 80.
Again it depends on the type of app created. I would say a good 70% of the entire app store right now would perform perfectly if it were published with the Flash ios packager.
I think you and many others missed the real reason apple was blocking those middle compilers and that reason was NOT and I repeat was NOT for better apps to be made. The real reason was to lock developers in and make it harder for them to develop apps for other platforms. Remember apple plays dirty in that area.
I like what Palm did and I believe google working on is developing tools to take iOS apps and have them ported over to WebOS and android. All that has to be done is have the app recompliled for the respective OS.
For us users this is a good thing as it makes it easier for us to have access to more apps and better apps in the long run.
Bravo.
Apple did good today. That restriction was bad, it was bad karma and it had no technical validity whatsoever. Lifting it is admitting they were wrong and I can respect a company that does.
This has renewed my fate in the iOS platform somewhat. Let's see if they can manage to get more things right in the future.
*cough* *cough*. Awaiting apology.
Let's see if you're as much a man as Apple was today and man up to your mistake.
Apple did good today. That restriction was bad, it was bad karma and it had no technical validity whatsoever. Lifting it is admitting they were wrong and I can respect a company that does.
This has renewed my fate in the iOS platform somewhat. Let's see if they can manage to get more things right in the future.
*cough* *cough*. Awaiting apology.
Let's see if you're as much a man as Apple was today and man up to your mistake.
Heh.
You don't have control over how Apple's compiler translates and optimizes Objective-C code either.
Anything above assembler is just an aid to programmers who don't have the time to learn it, or to spend writing it. That's a major reason why higher level languages exist and are popular.
And that's why arguments against them don't matter in the overall scheme of things. It's up to the programmer, not something to be dictated by ivory tower pundits.
Cheers!
Oh please... don't tell me you're confused about the difference between Flash Player in Safari (a browser plugin for [supposedly] attaining a "full" web experience), as opposed to Flash Pro (a development environment for coding games and other gimmicky apps). I don't care about the latter (so long as they respect the new multitasking protocols in iOS 4). Instead of an apology now, you get one yellow card (i.e., a warning not to pull quotes from one thread and try to make them fit into another). When my iPad gets invited to download the Flash Player plugin, then you'll get my acknowledgement. [no "apology" is called for either way]
powerful, yes. it's easy only so long as you're laying out components and wiring them together w/o anything *too* custom going on.
for those not familiar with the language, it's an OO language that looks a lot like java. it comes with a somewhat comprehensive SDK. components are life-cycle based and it's heavily event driven.
it is *not* only used to create websites. i've been writing 3-tier, enterprise apps in it for over 3 years. such apps can get rather complicated, quickly. i may have my own issues with Adobe, but they have very little to do with what i typically hear @ MR.
today's announcement is good news, as i have several ideas for apps, but little time to learn objective-C. as others have pointed out, any apps written in AS3 but compiled for ios will *not* be running in a flash plug-in, but will compile to a native ios app. This is a critical difference that seems to be lost on a lot of posters.
and btw, i'm not some scripting guy who picked up a programming book over the summer. i've been doing multi-tier enterprise apps for some decades now, in C, C++, Java, and now ActionScript. yeah, i could learn Obj-C if I wanted, i just haven't had time. i'd rather spend that time writing apps.
a final point: Apple makes a distinction between kinds of ios apps, such as utility and immersion. just because an app is written in AS3 doesn't automatically make it an immersion app, which seems to be a common misconception.
one can just as easily write a menu-based drilldown app in AS3, and i bet it'll be indistinguishable from one written in obj-C. it is NOT about the source language, it is about adhering to apple's design guidelines.
anyone who poo-poos an app because of its source language is being a bit reactionary, imho.
There's been quite the move to android by a huge number of developers. I'm guessing Apple slowly figured this out.
I say... awesome Apple, it's about time they woke up.
I say... awesome Apple, it's about time they woke up.
Nope, I never was confused about this. My points were always about the Flash to iPhone compiler in threads about it. If you look at my posting history, I often corrected people who mixed up both too and I said Apple had no technical reasons to do this and that they should reverse the ban, which they now have.
The link is intact and brings you back to the other thread. Still expecting an apology for your out of place comment about Flash. That other thread isn't about the plugin either, it's about Adobe moving on, and what was it they shipped and were moving on from ? Oh right, the Flash to iPhone compiler. So the threads are linked in a way.
It seems that I can argue and get what I want. Apple was wrong and manned up, you were wrong, do the same.
Ever notice that the most-used app of all, Apple's own Finder, wasn't updated to Cocoa until Snow Leopard?
It's not alone.
Last I heard, even Final Cut Pro users are waiting for Apple to "fully adopt Mac OS X" (to use Steve's "Thoughts on Flash" parlance).
This is the most amazing quality control document I have ever read. Apple has suddenly been infected with elephantiasis and I'm loving it.
Finally...
I was wondering how long it would take before someone put two and two together! It only took 47 comments!
I LOVE my Apple products, but you're right, its amazing what happens when Uncle Sam starts poking its head into your business...
I was wondering how long it would take before someone put two and two together! It only took 47 comments!
I LOVE my Apple products, but you're right, its amazing what happens when Uncle Sam starts poking its head into your business...