Yeah, you must have a really great, laid-back boss and liberal company policies since your company also has one of the top five market caps in the US, and produces industry-leading innovative products that the whole world loves to use, every critic loves to hate and every other tech company loves to denigrate while copying.
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.
Fallout From Apple's Exclusion of Flash-to-iPhone Export Continues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, you must have a really great, laid-back boss and liberal company policies since your company also has one of the top five market caps in the US, and produces industry-leading innovative products that the whole world loves to use, every critic loves to hate and every other tech company loves to denigrate while copying.
As I pointed out above the first time you said this. You should know better.
What they are enforcing is Native Development for a resource limited platform and excluding things like Java+JVM or Flash Scripts + Adobe Runtime. You are not going to write a native application that include some kind of Runtime or Virtual Machine layer, to suck up resources and slow you down just for kicks.
It should be obvious to any seasoned developer that native development conserves the limited resources and leads to faster slicker applications. While VMs/RTEs lead to wasted resources and lowest common denominator apps.
Innovation is also lost on your platform when you just start allowing lowest common denominator cross platform frameworks/RTE to be an application platform.
Apple made the right call on native development and it didn't just happen this week.
What a load of crap. Do you know what most of the games in the App Store are built with? Game engines like Torque and Unity 3D. Also intermediate solutions, just like Adobe's new tool.
And I'm not talking about iFart apps here. Some of these games are very popular and have been promoted on iTunes by Apple themselves. One example is Zombieville (made in Unity).
Stop talking out of your ass about crumbling pieces and toxic materials. You don't know anything about cross-platform development and you look like a fool trying to lecture us with that baffling comparison.
Since you submit binaries, not source, to Apple if the output of those two approaches was bit-for-bit identical they'd have no way to know how they were created and consequently no reason to reject you.
This is, of course, ignoring the fantasy that anyone would go out of their way to create another tool that resulted in the same output as Xcode but in an entirely different manner.
I'm not terribly keen on the change in terms here, but if it keeps applications from using 200MB runtimes to execute something that could be done in 200KB of native code, then all other issues aside it is good for App store customers.
Professional developers face limitations on how the produce their results all the time; it just depends on the requirements of a specific project.
I launch it every day on my iMac. It takes a few seconds. About the same amount of time as Aperture 3.
Photoshop is not bad. It works and it works WELL.
Why should I give a rats ass about how much money my bosses make? I'd rather look at how much I make, and if I enjoy going to work. You are unbelievable, you know that?
lol Does anyone here even remotely understand what Flash even is? It's not an ad/game/website platform, it's an IDE that gets abused because so many different people use it. It happens to be good for modular, cross-platform environments, which is a good thing in and of itself, but again, gets abused
I'm pro-adobe in this thread, but photoshop is definitely bloated. I've got the latest Macbook pro, tricked-out, and it takes way too long to boot up for a modern application. Same goes for other Adobe apps.
He's right, and if you don't at a gut-level understand why, I can understand his hesitance to enter into a multi-page remedial embedded systems development course. What he said is like someone saying "it's perfectly reasonable for a daycare to require a contact phone number for the parents." If you honestly don't know why, maybe it's just not the right conversation for you to be in.
Exactly, that and he turned off comments on his piece. It was all about him giving folks the finger and then going off to sulk...
If language Foo has abstract concepts like variants or heapspace garbage collection that don't exist in C, then the Foo-to-C compiler will need to link in a Foo-C runtime lib that implements those. Clearly the Foo-to-C compiler won't be generating machine code that is 'BIT-FOR-BIT identical' for most cases of Foo.
Moreover, the quality of the implementation of the Foo-to-C compiler will affect a large number of App store apps, and hence the general iPhone user experience, if the Foo programming language is very popular. There's no guarantee that the Foo-to-C compiler will be even remotely capable of building 'BIT-FOR-BIT identical' machine code for most cases of Foo.
I see J.M. Smucker is on the list.
http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/...e-j-m-smucker-shutter-plants-cut-15-cent.html
Washington Mutual seems equally awesome.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0821252420100408?type=marketsNews
Yup, like After Effects, I have to use it everyday...but it has got to be the buggiest, most bloated piece of **** ever.
It seriously takes a few seconds here, I can post a video if you like.
Considering I leave it loaded 90% of the time the load time is pretty moot anyway.When people say it's bloated I agree in a sense but I use a lot of the extra "junk features" that most people would consider bloat. To have a smaller, leaner Photoshop they might have to take stuff out. I'd rather have too much functionality in this sort of program. I don't attribute any slowness just to bad programming. (tbf surely a smaller, leaner Photoshop would be Elements, how quickly does that load? It doesnt do most of the stuff I need, but it'd support the "it takes longer to load because it does a lot" thing.)
People say iTunes is bloated too. I don't mind it, it works fine for me. Photoshop is, and has been solid as a rock for me and the establishments I've used it at. The ex-Macromedia apps aren't bad either.
Bravo. The old "well if you don't know, i'm not going to tell you" argument. Throw in a couple insults and an irrelevant analogy for good measure, that makes you come off as knowledgeable.
Sure, it is certainly desirable to know and program in the native code, but that doesn't mean that Apple has to make it a requirement.
I like how Mr. Lee Brimelow comments are blocked, for obvious reasons of course, so maybe we should find the appropriate e-mail at Adobe.com and politely ask them if they would forward the reply to Mr. Lee Brimelow. Who's with me?!
Well, no, that's not quite what they said. What they said was "we won't distribute, through our App Store, some resource-hogging pile of s**t that is cross-compiled n levels deep to produce some kind of god-awful bloated crap that interferes with the proper operation of the iPhone/iPad." They also said "we don't have time to do a comprehensive evaluation of every tool out there to see how well it works, so we're specifying some that, when used properly, result in apps which have adequate efficiency (storage, RAM, and CPU cycle usage)."
So if you want write something written in Forth that was then cross-compiled to Pascal to produce P-Code which gets interpreted by a P-code interpreter written in Algol that was cross-compiled to C, submit it to Red Hat and let us know how that works out for you.
There is a report cited on one of the Macrumors threads from a Flash developer who says it works poorly - even relatively simple menu actions are slow and choppy.
Furthermore, even Adobe says it's not going to be ready for at least a year. Even if they hit that timeline (which they've never managed for any previous Flash tools), that means it's useless for at least a year - even if Apple allowed it.
That's what Apple did. So why are you whining?
That would speed up their bankruptcy, anyway.
If you're correct that there's nothing in ActionScript which makes it inherently slow, then it must be Adobe's incompetence which causes it. Thanks for pointing that out.
Total BS. Last I heard, only about 10% of Mac users have any paid Adobe products on their system (most have PDF viewer, but since Preview handles that even better, there's no point). Maybe you should stop babbling about things you have no clue about.
Actually, the photographer who just shot my daughter's photos uses CS2. There's no rule that a professional has to upgrade to every version. If the version they are using does the job, no reason not to keep it.
If Adobe announced tomorrow that CS5 would be the last Mac version, Apple would have a Photoshop equivalent out in less than a year. Adobe would be bankrupt before that.
Well, it was always pretty low, but I suspect you're right.
If you're content to sell crappy apps, that is good advice. OTOH, if you want to sell GREAT apps, use the tools designed for each platform.
Really? Then maybe you can show me where the 64 bit version of Photoshop is. Perhaps the most widely used application that would benefit from 64 bit - and it's still not there. Or maybe you can explain why it took Adobe considerably longer than any other major developer (even Microsoft!) to start using Cocoa.
It's also interesting that Adobe let him leave the 'no comments' thing in place.
No doubt Adobe is being juvenile about it, too. They're just trying to make it look like they're the injured party, but no one is buying it.
And, yet, the fastest growing segment of the internet (mobile devices) doesn't support Flash. There are no full Flash versions on ANY mobile platform.
It's not just Apple who said 'no Flash'. It's the entire mobile industry.
That's nice. If you really had written several OSs, why is it that you never learned that letting apps have unfettered access to everything is a formula for disaster?
It's not coming to mobile, at all. I think the game is being played for the shareholders. After all, when results start to drop, having a scapegoat is useful.
Not even close to true. Adobe would be out of business in less than a year if they stopped selling Mac software. If Adobe users stopped buying Macs, Apple would be hurt, but probably wouldn't even have to dig into its $40 Billion cash reserve.
I like how Mr. Lee Brimelow comments are blocked, for obvious reasons of course, so maybe we should find the appropriate e-mail at Adobe.com and politely ask them if they would forward the reply to Mr. Lee Brimelow. Who's with me?!
+1
Because he can dish it out but he can't take it. Post the inflammatory drivel, then block comments in order to let it sit for maximum PR effect.
Dollars-to-donuts it'll have the exact opposite of the intended effect. It would seem with this blog post sanctioned by Adobe, they haven't the first clue how to dress this up effectively for the public. Telling the tech-darling of the industry that runs the most lucrative, profitable app store for the best devices on the market to "screw off" is just a few short steps below PR suicide.
I'm not that worried.
Im not that worried. I have already invented a transcoder from Actionscript 3.0 to Objective-C.
Its called India.
Haha. To hear my real thoughts on the subject and voice your own, checkout the blog; http://www.blog.rivello.org/no-flash-on-iphone-ever
Im not that worried. I have already invented a transcoder from Actionscript 3.0 to Objective-C.
Its called India.
Haha. To hear my real thoughts on the subject and voice your own, checkout the blog; http://www.blog.rivello.org/no-flash-on-iphone-ever
Great example
That's probably what the concern is! Good grief, PowerPoint can't even deal with transparency, let alone decent transitions, typography, color management and a load of other stuff that would make a half-way decent QT movie. Can PowerPoint itself even adequately play AVIs within a slide? That should give you a clue as to the best results you could ever expect from PowerPoint, no matter how attractively you try to package it or hide what's inside. Sure, you can turn a folder of jpegs and a plain text file into a sub-titled QT file. And I'd watch that with as much interest as a PowerPoint turned into a QT. Now, if you were talking about an iPhoto Slideshow saved as a QT movie, you'd get my attention.Similarly, I don't see what good it does to dress up an inadequate solution, ie "port applications written in Flash to an iPhone native format" when the right tools are at hand -- tools that are arguably cheaper, better and designed for the job.
So, anyhow, who still learns Flash "programming" these days? Do some befuddled, behind-the-times community art colleges still pump out these "programmers" who really ought to be using simple creative tools producing "creative" products according to open standards? Do they tend to produce people who are neither good programmers nor good artists? Are these the same places where career advisers paid by MS push students down the path of becoming an IT Drone to ensure a perpetuation of the dark arts by an elite preisthood? Really, who is still pushing people toward this stagnant technology that was good for some interactive CD-ROMs way back when, before the internet got big?
Lee Brimelow, same to you
Lee Brimelow in his ignorance and blindness forgets several important things.
One of them is that when Steve Jobs came to Adobe in late 1990's, and asked Bruce Chizen if Adobe would be interested to make a suite of multimedia programs for Mac, Bruce very much said to SJ to pi** off.
Then Apple decided to do it on their own and that's how iLife came to life.
Second is that Flash has never been nicely transplanted for Mac OS X, for it exhausts Mac machines and it is a processor hog. Adobe knows that.
Adobe wants developers to use Flash even further with the CS5. When I saw the feature lists in CS5, I sad to myself: "Oh my God, Adobe not only doesn't want to think for the future, but plays on Flash in all of its applications without making Flash itself a truly cross-platform-good-performing citizen."
NOw when Apple wants to make an all new OS (iPhone OS) well performing, feature full, and adding all new features to support just that -- a remarkable user experience -- a lazy columnist from Adobe summons into a burst of sheer ignorance defending its own lack of vision, blaming others for taking alternative steps to provide us users great products with great user experience.
Adobe and Macromedia have had Flash it for 15 years and have done nothing substantial about it, and now when they want to use it as a shortcut to develop apps for iPad -- and clearly Apple wants applications to be written differently for best iPhone OS performance -- they start to cry.
They're just lazy, lazy, lazy. In last 10 years Apple has made 5 versions of the OS X for both PowerPC and Intel processors (that's 10 versions of OS X), one version od the OS X for Intel only (10.6, making it grand total 11 versions of the MAc OS X, which is very indicative in what a hostile environment Apple lives in that makes it prepared for everything), several editions of a completely new iPhone OS, made it's own suite of applications for end users for that platform (iLife, iWork) because others didn't have any interest to do it ... yet Adobe just now with CS5 finally delivers a native Cocoa version of Photoshop for OS X, and Microsoft just now finally delivers Cocoa based MS Office (in their next issue of the MS Office).
Now, tell me now who is a hard working visionary that works madly around the clock, adding new stuff and innovating, and who's a spoiled, lazy, lazy, lazy brat, that can't make a good native application for Apple's OS in 10 years. And they won't even do it rightly for the iPhone OS, but they want to do it their lazy, lazy way.
Mr Lee Brimelow, same to you.
Lee Brimelow in his ignorance and blindness forgets several important things.
One of them is that when Steve Jobs came to Adobe in late 1990's, and asked Bruce Chizen if Adobe would be interested to make a suite of multimedia programs for Mac, Bruce very much said to SJ to pi** off.
Then Apple decided to do it on their own and that's how iLife came to life.
Second is that Flash has never been nicely transplanted for Mac OS X, for it exhausts Mac machines and it is a processor hog. Adobe knows that.
Adobe wants developers to use Flash even further with the CS5. When I saw the feature lists in CS5, I sad to myself: "Oh my God, Adobe not only doesn't want to think for the future, but plays on Flash in all of its applications without making Flash itself a truly cross-platform-good-performing citizen."
NOw when Apple wants to make an all new OS (iPhone OS) well performing, feature full, and adding all new features to support just that -- a remarkable user experience -- a lazy columnist from Adobe summons into a burst of sheer ignorance defending its own lack of vision, blaming others for taking alternative steps to provide us users great products with great user experience.
Adobe and Macromedia have had Flash it for 15 years and have done nothing substantial about it, and now when they want to use it as a shortcut to develop apps for iPad -- and clearly Apple wants applications to be written differently for best iPhone OS performance -- they start to cry.
They're just lazy, lazy, lazy. In last 10 years Apple has made 5 versions of the OS X for both PowerPC and Intel processors (that's 10 versions of OS X), one version od the OS X for Intel only (10.6, making it grand total 11 versions of the MAc OS X, which is very indicative in what a hostile environment Apple lives in that makes it prepared for everything), several editions of a completely new iPhone OS, made it's own suite of applications for end users for that platform (iLife, iWork) because others didn't have any interest to do it ... yet Adobe just now with CS5 finally delivers a native Cocoa version of Photoshop for OS X, and Microsoft just now finally delivers Cocoa based MS Office (in their next issue of the MS Office).
Now, tell me now who is a hard working visionary that works madly around the clock, adding new stuff and innovating, and who's a spoiled, lazy, lazy, lazy brat, that can't make a good native application for Apple's OS in 10 years. And they won't even do it rightly for the iPhone OS, but they want to do it their lazy, lazy way.
Mr Lee Brimelow, same to you.
Flash in safari browser (BAD) / Converted Flash to stand-alone iPhone App (?)
I completely understand why Apple wants to keep Flash out of Safari, and Opera mini, if it ever makes it through the approval process. Flash is definitely a resource hog.
Want proof? Download a CPU meter and play a YouTube video on your Mac or PC. Even if you've installed one of the Flash Player 10.1 Betas, which supposedly use more of your graphics card, your CPU usage will be fairly high.
Then, opt-in to YouTube's HTML5 initiative and play the same video. I guarantee you the CPU meter will show substantially less usage.
However, if Adobe wants to convert a Flash app to an iPhone app, that's something else entirely. The code inside the app is changed to C, C++, or Objective-C. Now, Apple requires Xcode to compile apps.
The question is: will an app converted from Adobe's software to an iPhone/iPad app be the same resource hog that a Flash app is through the Flash Player? If the answer is no, then why would Apple force this?
Someone could rip a Flash app from the web, convert it to an iPhone app, and submit it to Apple without ownership of the content. That would piss off a lot of Flash developers and create a huge legal battle that Apple just doesn't want to delve into.
I completely understand why Apple wants to keep Flash out of Safari, and Opera mini, if it ever makes it through the approval process. Flash is definitely a resource hog.
Want proof? Download a CPU meter and play a YouTube video on your Mac or PC. Even if you've installed one of the Flash Player 10.1 Betas, which supposedly use more of your graphics card, your CPU usage will be fairly high.
Then, opt-in to YouTube's HTML5 initiative and play the same video. I guarantee you the CPU meter will show substantially less usage.
However, if Adobe wants to convert a Flash app to an iPhone app, that's something else entirely. The code inside the app is changed to C, C++, or Objective-C. Now, Apple requires Xcode to compile apps.
The question is: will an app converted from Adobe's software to an iPhone/iPad app be the same resource hog that a Flash app is through the Flash Player? If the answer is no, then why would Apple force this?
Someone could rip a Flash app from the web, convert it to an iPhone app, and submit it to Apple without ownership of the content. That would piss off a lot of Flash developers and create a huge legal battle that Apple just doesn't want to delve into.
Ok a quick, "Why native development is better than frameworks/VMs/RTEs":
1: Resources/Performance: It should be clear to anyone with any development experience, that on a resource limited platform, you will save resources by programming natively. This is hugely significant when you want to deliver world class performance in a RAM/CPU constrained phone.
2: Lowest Common Denominator: Even when you are not resource constrained, using a cross platform framework will tend to push applications to using lowest common denominator feature sets. Applications will tend not to use leading edge features that exist only on your platform.
3: Poor incentive to innovate the platform: If your new features are likely to go unused until everyone in the lowest common denominator also gets them, you have little incentive to introduce new features.
It goes deeper than that, but that is as far as I should need to go for even reasonable functional layman.
Any developer of any experience should know this implicitly. Apple wanting to enforce native application development is a perfectly reasonable technical requirement for the benefit of the platform and for the users. The only losers are cross platform scripters.