Well it is not going to affect your health but it is going to affect you whether you like it or not.
Dev can only code so much and these frameworks and cross compiling allows for faster development especially when developing for different platforms. Forbidding these means that you will see certain titles not coming to the app store at all or they will be delayed or they will be more expensive because more devs are required to pull off the same job.
Sorry, I prefer to buy apps that are properly thought out and designed - even if it takes the developer a few more hours of work. Lazy developers rarely produce great apps.
anyone here actually realizes that flash performance on mobile devices is actually a lot better than with html 5. here are some speedtests
http://phandroid.com/2010/04/01/speed-test-flash-vs-html5-on-the-nexus-one/
interesting...flash performs 20 frames per second while the same app reaches only 2fps on an iphone.
Well, you might start by wondering why a Google/Adobe funded site produces results different than the entire rest of the world achieves.
I foresee some forced changes for Apple by court rulings in the future, just like MS have had to do
Geez. Yet another troll who doesn't understand the concept of what antitrust laws do.
Hello,
being a licensed developer for Nintendo Wii and also iPhone I can tell you: Yes it's true, Nintendo has strict regulations. It is really not an easy task to pass Nintendos QA. But we are fine with that. We could develop for another platform if we wanted to. Of course customers can buy any other device if Nintendos restrictions do not allow anything they would like to have.
But Apple goes far beyond that. They try to use their controll over a leading mobile platform to change the way the web works. This does not only affect Apple customers and developers. Everyone who uses the web or develops for it is affected when in important player intentionally creates incompatibility with something that is well established. It is the same as the browser war 10 years ago.
Uh huh. So if Adobe whines that the Nintendo DS doesn't support Flash, you're OK with that? It should be mandatory on the DS? And if Adobe wants to release crappy emulated games for your DS, you don't think it reflects on you?
I have to agree with Ommo as a Graphic Designer the bad relationship between Apple and Adobe is very worrying.
Apple have seemed to have forgotten the Pro market which has supported Apple since its birth. If for example the Adobe CS software was only available to Windows user I could see the whole Design and Media industry moving over to Windows. Programs like Aperture are not practical replacements for programmes like Photoshop.
Apple's not the one that forgot the pro market. At one time, 90% of graphics professionals used Macs. Adobe started releasing Mac versions of the software later than the Windows versions and leaving out key technologies. Heck, even today, Photoshop is not 64 bit on the Mac. Adobe STILL hasn't released a version using Apple's Cocoa environment - which has been the standard for nearly a decade. Adobe made a clear and conscious effort to switch people to Windows versions of their programs. And this all occurred at the time that the G5 was incredibly powerful compared to Intel's high end chips (particularly for people who took the time to use Altivec properly).
This is a very very dangerous precedent, and it should not be allowed to happen. However, Apple seem to be tightening their stranglehold on the app store market, and people are foolishly going along with it.
What ever happened to the days when people could create a rational argument about something and rely on the strength of that argument? In today's world, 'it's foolish' is supposed to be an argument?
It's certainly not foolish to consumers. The iPhone has taken off because it's powerful, easy to use, and reliable. Apple has a very strong interest in being able to maintain that - and banning virtual machine junk is one part of that.
Uh... dunno if anyone has said this yet, but:
This has nothing to do with stopping users from creating Flash-based native content. All it means is that Adobe has to make sure everything they let their users deploy is compiled the right way. The only way to ensure that is if it BECOMES C/C++/Obj-C at some point in the development process before it is compiled. It is absurd that Adobe would think code generated any other way would even be plausible.
Why? Several reasons:
1. If it's not compiled to Apple's standards, then it means if Apple releases an OS update all Flash-based apps may suddenly crash. Nobody will blame the Flash developers, they will blame their "stupid iPhones".
2. If there is no layer that can be examined in Xcode, then it means Apple is forced to purchase Adobe's proprietary product in order to review submitted apps.
I suspect the reason for Apple using the words "written in" rather than "compiled from" stem from the fact that auto-generated code is downright impossible to read sometimes.
Frankly, Apple allowing this would be absurd.
Of course. Adobe had to know that what they were doing didn't make sense. If they wanted to do a Flash to Objective C converter, it would have been OK (it would still have produced lousy code because the code design would be so sub-optimal, but it would have been allowed).
It's also interesting that it's a non-issue, anyway. Adobe says that they wouldn't be able to ship a final product for at least a year (even if they magically manage to hit a deadline for a change). Anyone who doesn't have an app in the AppStore in a MONTH (not a year) is going to find themselves way behind the curve.
Requiring that all apps be written the way Apple is now saying they are going to require actually greatly REDUCES the amount of quality apps that will appear in the App store, and REQUIRES developers to use tools that are much less reliable and more error-prone.
This is, of course, nonsense (funny coming from someone complaining about the ill-informed posts here).
Structure almost always increases quality. Look at any of the principles of modern production (cars, machinery, software, financial products, etc). It is ALWAYS the case that having a framework and structure for the process improves the process significantly.
I am currently starting out in my first programing class. I am starting at the basics of Pseudocode and flow charts. Some of us in class have talked about where we are going as far as code is concerned once we pass the first class. Out of a class of 40 I'm the only one that said I was going to C++ and objective-C. Most of the others are going to focus on HTML, Java and Flash.
The reason why most people said they didn't want to go to any version of C is, because it's too hard. Which I think is a good thing. Keep the ones out of the code that won't ever be able to figure it out and the ones who are smart will be the ones coding in C and the ones that will make the money!
I'm glad the class has at least one student with a brain. What is wrong with the instructor? Unless this is an elementary school programming course, the instructor is steering them the wrong way.
Learning to use html and Flash is not programming. The instructor (or whoever created the course curriculum) should be fired.
Merely valid Objective C is not the problem. Everybody is barking up the wrong tree. (It's probably just a graduate homework assignment to turn LLVM output into bad Obj C source code.)
It's the API translation issue (megabytes of it).
A standard Cocoa Touch button in Objective C: 1 line of code to create it, 1 line of code to place it in a view (or both in a xib), 1 line of code to start responding to a user's tap. 3 API calls.
Does the CS5 tool do this? Could the CS5 tool do this? No and No. The Cocoa Touch button doesn't look and act *exactly* like a flash API button (or else it wouldn't be cross-platform portable). So there's library code to build it, code to draw it, code to convert touches into mouse events (because that's what flash buttons handle), code to redraw the button when hit, redraw when under flash pop-ups, and etc.
Instead of 3 lines of Obj C, the tool calls 100's, maybe 1000's of lines of flash library code and wierd API calls only distantly related to the UIButton. Plus the button now looks (maybe even smells) funny to an iPhone user.
Apple wants to optimize Obj C button handling (save power or sprinkle fairy-dust between taps or some such)? Easy, they find my 3 lines of API calls and handler. Apple wants to optimize button handling inside the flash cruft: Good luck even finding this "button" code without an FBI search warrant. User's battery dies and she blames Apple.
That's the real reason why Apple is kicking out Adobe's CS5 tool.
ihmo.
Great examples. I wonder why the Flash fanatics don't seem to get this simple concept.
I've been pro-Apple for a long time.... not much a fan of the iPad as my post history will show..... but f**k this company. What an absolute disgrace. This is MS part 2. I wil never, EVER purchase another Apple product again in my life.
So you're going to stop buying Apple products because they go to great lengths to ensure that their customers get a solid, reliable product optimized for ease of use and performance?
Sounds a little misguided to me.
You say that but I have seen on these boards multiple graphic designers and some personal friends of mind who are in the art world have all stated they are thinking about leaving Apple and going over to windows due to the cost of the hardware to get what they need. They can get what they require from a PC for far less with out having to pay for all the extra crap they do not need.
Sorry, but I can't take someone seriously who claims that real professional graphics designers are going to change their entire work system to save $500.
(not to mention, of course, that on very high end systems, Macs are quite competitive. How many 8 core Xeon systems can you find for the price of a Mac Pro?)
Adobe swears up and down that they produce valid objective-c: no runtime interpreter, no virtual machine. If so then I don't think they have a problem. Unless they are ********ting and actually have an Objective-C virtual machine that runs their flash code......
In which case Apple has a reason to be pissed and adobe has reason to be scared.
Actually, Adobe has a hard time claiming anything since their converter is only in Alpha and even if Adobe magically hits their release target, it's over a year away. But people who have used it report that the performance stinks - even simple menus are choppy and slow. If they were producing true Objective C code, they could simply send that to xcode and Apple would be happy. It's clear that they're not doing that. They're instead producing runtime binaries that never go through Objective C or any of the other allowed languages.
