Fallout From Apple's Exclusion of Flash-to-iPhone Export Continues

[fmaxwell]

are quick to label such criticisms as "fanboy" talk.

It's just a Circumstantial Ad Hominem logical fallacy: Attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim has some self-interest in making that claim. A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to make certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own.

Example:

Person A says "The glaciers in Glacier National Park are melting."
Person B says "You would say that because you are a tree-hugging liberal."

It's the kind of intellectual shallowness and laziness that all-too-often passes for debate on the Internet.

 

[Journojulz]

I couldn't care less if Jobs was a saint or the biggest a**hole on the planet; Apple has achieved spectacular results under his leadership since 1997, that's all that really counts.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-04/bz_apple_rules

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-04/bz_apple

 

[Hal Itosis]

Been an Apple user for many years, but lately I've felt like Apple is stepping out of line without how they control content for sake of making more money. And seemingly they now only care about their iPhone and iPad, which makes sense because they make blockbusters out of it. But what about us who still like Apple for their computers? No new Macbook Pros in 10 months, and I assume they won't sneak peak 10.7 at WWDC which would be the right timeline from previous intervals. And now they want to take a dump on Adobe? Say what you want about Adobe's ways of making products - I mean no one is going to argue that Adobe does enough for people to update their products, and people are catching on finally (see sales of CS4). But Apple is heading the same way. Unfortunately for Apple, they actually have competition. And my Mac computer usage depends on Adobe products.

Some historical context perhaps: "Sorry, Adobe, you screwed yourself"

--

EDIT: Btw, post #1094 above encapsulates the crux of Apple's move beautifully.

 

[awesomebase]

Adobe-less

Adobe has got to be THE most inefficient software company out there. They sell somewhere close to 40 different products in about 7 or 8 categories with each of the 5 to 8 products in those categories doing 50% to 90% of the same tasks as THEIR own software. They charge thousands of dollars for packages that their competitors offer for a fraction of the price. Even MS got it a few years ago and started selling MS Office for $100... Adobe is selling products like they think it is 1990 or something.
I have no sympathy for them. They screwed all Apple FrameMaker users and have been consistently dumbing down their products on Apple's platform... no surprise that they're finally getting locked out. Good riddance.

 

[sorchard]

Because some person with an iPhone doesn't want to discover that the new battery meter app they installed is logging their keystrokes and sending them to some kid in Uzbekistan. They don't want to find out that the nifty business card app was actually a trojan horse that is staying 3G-connected 24/7 while sending out spam. They don't want to have to reset their phone to factory defaults because the poorly written app they installed walked all over configuration files. And finally, because it's Apple's product and Apple's business model.

Other companies seem to be able to implement a decent level of security, yet allow the user to override it if necessary.

Nokia, for example, does this. For the most basic "capabilities" (what an application is allowed to do), you can install it without signing at all.

For almost everything else, you can use a Nokia-approved website to sign it (without having to pay, sign any NDA, or have them inspect it) for your IMEI and your IMEI only. This means that an "attacker" would need to get hold of that and get you to install whatever it is they want.

For commercial applications, the signing process may involve an INDEPENDENT test house inspecting the application against a well published set of criteria (you don't need to sign an NDA or pay to get it), that doesn't change on the whim of the CEO of Symbian, and it doesn't include opinion (i.e. Nokia doesn't like your application so it won't be signed). It does include cleanliness (does it uninstall cleanly, etc) and things like warning before sending premium SMSes.

As for your last point. It is MY product (I have paid to own it). I'll decide what I run on MY product - not Apple. If they want to refund my money I'll let them have control.

Just because Apple does something one way, doesn't make it the only way or indeed the best way.

 

[ranReloaded]

Adobe has got to be THE most inefficient software company out there. They sell somewhere close to 40 different products in about 7 or 8 categories with each of the 5 to 8 products in those categories doing 50% to 90% of the same tasks as THEIR own software.

Agreed. That happens when you buy Macromedia Fireworks but you already own Illustrator and Photoshop.

They charge thousands of dollars for packages that their competitors offer for a fraction of the price. Even MS got it a few years ago and started selling MS Office for $100... Adobe is selling products like they think it is 1990 or something.
I have no sympathy for them. They screwed all Apple FrameMaker users and have been consistently dumbing down their products on Apple's platform... no surprise that they're finally getting locked out. Good riddance.

On the bright side, and slightly off-topic, 9to5 reports that Flash CS5 will support, albeit in a very basic way, the long suggested "export to HTML5 Canvas" feature.

The Apple haters complain when Apple omits a feature and complain again when Apple implements it just because "it took them so long".

I will, instead, give kudos to Adobe on this one.

 

[charlituna]

You don't think Apple engineers can decompile an iPhone .ipsw file to find the Adobe runtimes or libraries?

Sure they can. Would they take the time to analyze every line of code if it is in the appropriate language. Probably not. Especially if there's nothing do clue them in that they might find such libraries. And even if it is some Adobe runtime in Obj C etc where does it say that that's 'illegal'.

 

[Hal Itosis]

Other companies seem to be able to implement a decent level of security, yet allow the user to override it if necessary.

Nokia, for example, does this.
[ . . . ]

As for your last point. It is MY product (I have paid to own it). I'll decide what I run on MY product - not Apple. If they want to refund my money I'll let them have control.

Just because Apple does something one way, doesn't make it the only way or indeed the best way.

No one ever said it was the "only" way.
No one ever said it was the "best" way.

I will simply say this: enjoy your Nokia.
[i hear it plays Flash vids slow as a slide show. ]

 

[John.B]

Yeah, FCS ought to be Cocoa by now, but we really don't know the reasons for the delay - no one has yet ported an app or suite the size of CS, MS Office, or FCS, for that matter, from Carbon to Cocoa, so we’re dealing with unknown territory.

FWIW, Photoshop CS5 just underwent the Carbon to Cocoa conversion. It ships Monday (tomorrow). I don't know how many of the other CS5 applications made the transition.

Also, Office 2011 is in the process of a complete Carbon to Cocoa conversion right now; it's expected to ship this Fall.

 

[John.B]

Sure they can. Would they take the time to analyze every line of code if it is in the appropriate language. Probably not. Especially if there's nothing do clue them in that they might find such libraries. And even if it is some Adobe runtime in Obj C etc where does it say that that's 'illegal'.

If Adobe's Flash-to-iPhone "compiler" just generated Objective-C that could do a simple Xcode build, then there wouldn't be a problem.

But that's not what it does.

It packages up the Flash ActionScript, bundles it with a bunch of libraries that handle the conversion from touch events to mouse events (for one example) and bundles that into a monolithic binary that intermediates the calls between the Flash application and the Cocoa Touch APIs. Normal iPhone apps are packages that have small executables and individual resources that are loaded and unloaded as needed. It's pretty easy to see the differences with even a passing knowledge of iPhone app development.

BTW, interpreters have always been forbidden for App Store apps in the iPhone SDK license, since day one. That's why Java and the JVM have been excluded. Even if you "compile" the interpreter into your app, it's still an interpreter.

I'm going out on a limb here, but either you don't have the iPhone SDK or you didn't read the license you agreed to.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Adobe needs to get its act together

Adobe has got to be THE most inefficient software company out there. They sell somewhere close to 40 different products in about 7 or 8 categories with each of the 5 to 8 products in those categories doing 50% to 90% of the same tasks as THEIR own software. They charge thousands of dollars for packages that their competitors offer for a fraction of the price. Even MS got it a few years ago and started selling MS Office for $100... Adobe is selling products like they think it is 1990 or something.
I have no sympathy for them. They screwed all Apple FrameMaker users and have been consistently dumbing down their products on Apple's platform... no surprise that they're finally getting locked out. Good riddance.

I'm reluctantly forced to agree completely. Also, Adobe should have been first out of the gate with 64-bit developer's apps. Adobe's multimedia-image-processing capabilities need both larger memory and can use the new instruction sets. Adobe should have been there first. They do have one 64-bit app, with at least one more soon, but, they have taken their sweet time about it. I have to agree with the quote that their overlapping, separately and expensively priced apps use the historical (1980's) software pricing model. Adobe needs to fix this *now* if they don't want to be history.

As for Flash vs HTML5 -- I always turn off Flash whenever I can. Apparently many others do also -- "Flashblock" was one of the first user extensions to get done for Firefox and Chrome, and, always has a huge number of downloads. Apple is now saying what many of us have been saying for years.

Obviously a few Adobe employees feel they have an "entitlement" with Adobe's *proprietary* Flash product. To me, it is just welfare for Adobe.

 

[Swift]

I hate it!

I do think that Apple is acting in a monopolistic, tyrannical way.

Wait.. maybe I shouldn't say that... Apple legal might stop me.

Just to make something clear. Apple legal couldn't care less what we say here, unless we were releasing core bits of code that belonged to Apple, or their release schedule. Your pipsqueak opinion gets a free pass.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

And there are many pages that make me believe in flash as a great tool for the web...just take http://ge.ecomagination.com/smartgrid/ for example. I love this site and don't see how it would possible to create the same experience in html5.

One giant ad for GE products. Wow. That site is nothing more than an overblown banner ad.

In any event, all of that can be done with HTML5.

Agreed to a point. Desktops will still be needed; I need lots of ram, multiple drives and cards, and with multiple processors/cores, that can't be kept cool let alone fit in a small box.

That is what the "cloud" is for......

 

[lilo777]

Practice What You Preach

Steve Jobs has now said "We've been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform." That's not "nebulous." It's a specific claim based on years of observation.

Since iTunes for Windows uses non-native APIs such as CoreFoundation and CoreGraphics, Steve Jobs at the very least is being hypocritical here. Oh wait... he might not even realize it. After all he is a salesman, not a developer.

 

[John.B]

That is what the "cloud" is for......

You are going to store RAM in the cloud?

 

[Swift]

Don't bother, here is what you will get:

Pro HTML 5:
- Most video site (youtube, vimeo, ustream...) use HTML 5 now
- It's more stable and browser friendly
- You can virtually do anything Flash can do
- It's the future

As a non pro-flash neither a pro-html 5, i would argue:

- HTML 5 only works with Chrome and Safarie ie. 8% of the internet user
- 75% of games, 90% of videos, most of ads and tons of websites are in Flash
- "Virtually" means you can't even do do half what Flash can do for now
- W3C has not even made it a standard, and today hundres of thousands of developpers CHOOSE to use Flash, who's Apple to tell them they can't ?
That pure good sense but hey...iSheep or iDon'tbuyBS.

But what I see is frustration here, and THAT I can understand: most Adobe software's are bloated as f**k, but again it's pure hypocrisy: Itunes is bloated as well on Windows, Aperture s*cks, and more and more of my friends have complaints about their Mac getting slower and slower...

Your friends should turn off Flash. They'd see a marked improvement. Install ClickToFlash and see how many pages load in an instant.

Once again, Apple still supports Flash in Safari and on its desktop platform. It's ubiquitous there. Where it ISN'T is on the mobile platforms. Three years ago, Apple announced the iPhone, with no Flash support. Adobe kicked and screamed, but really, there was no good way to implement it on a mobile platforms. Adobe promised a new, compact version. There's been 4 or more versions of Flash lite, but they still don't make it possible to run anything but a small part of the full Flash on the web. For all the talk of Apple's rivals about implementing Flash on THEIR mobile devices, it's still not a reality. It's still vaporware.

Adobe seems to care about one thing: keeping the ad business hooked on its proprietary format, and then selling them the tools to create it. End of story. Fair enough, if it wasn't a bag 'o crap from the beginning.

The standards committee has passed HTML5 video. There's still the stills and animation to go. That is Canvas, the formulation pushed by Apple, which they have promised will be free and without patent encumbrance as soon as it's adopted as standard. Guess who's on the committee and finds a problem with that? That's right, Adobe.

Do me a favor. Go on the YouTube beta of HTML5. Works. No plug-in. No crash. Look at the Sublime Video player. http://jilion.com/sublime/video

Go here: http://live.twit.tv

If you watch on your regular browser, it's Flash. Go there on your mobile Safari, it's HTML 5. Live streaming. No plug-in.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

You are going to store RAM in the cloud?

Your view of cloud computing is distorted.

 

[firewood]

Even if you "compile" the interpreter into your app, it's still an interpreter.

But if you compile all the source code and/or byte code into native asm for the target CPU, it's not an interpreter. CS5 reportedly (they've given talks on the technology) uses LLVM plus their own assembler to do the latter. The problems are that (1) the LLVM intermediate isn't C like and (2) and the flash API calls are very expensively translated at runtime (thus all the code bloat).

 

[John.B]

Your view of cloud computing is distorted.

No, it isn't.

You can store your data in the cloud (if you trust it). You can run some applications and APIs in the cloud (if you trust that it is secure and available). But you can't replace a local device to connect to it; and that requires CPU, RAM, some local storage, some type of network connectivity, etc.

 

[John.B]

Since iTunes for Windows uses non-native APIs such as CoreFoundation and CoreGraphics, Steve Jobs at the very least is being hypocritical here. Oh wait... he might not even realize it. After all he is a salesman, not a developer.

There is a big difference between a desktop OS and a mobile OS.

 

[lilo777]

There is a big difference between a desktop OS and a mobile OS.

Not really. iPhone OS is used on iPad. Windows 7 is used on many netbooks and computers like HP Slate.

 

[cmaier]

There is a big difference between a desktop OS and a mobile OS.

It's also not hypocritical. If Microsoft declared such "middleware" is no longer a licensed use of windows (assuming they could even do such a thing legally) and Jobs complained, then THAT might be hypocritical.

 

[lilo777]

It's also not hypocritical. If Microsoft declared such "middleware" is no longer a licensed use of windows (assuming they could even do such a thing legally) and Jobs complained, then THAT might be hypocritical.

That's not what I meant though. Steve is being hypocritical when he claims that "intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps", yet he encourages the use of intermediate layers for developing Apple's own products. Not to mention that the claim itself is totally baseless. Firstly, many applications are about content and do not require extreme efficiency in a fist place. Secondly, when used properly middleware may produce great results. Just look at Qt framework. I have never heard of people complaining about Google Earth or Skype (both using Qt) as being poorly designed applications.

 

[cmaier]

That's not what I meant though. Steve is being hypocritical when he claims that "intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps", yet he encourages the use of intermediate layers for developing Apple's own products. Not to mention that the claim itself is totally baseless. Firstly, many applications are about content and do not require extreme efficiency in a fist place. Secondly, when used properly middleware may produce great results. Just look at Qt framework. I have never heard of people complaining about Google Earth or Skype (both using Qt) as being poorly designed applications.

It's still not hypocritical (I think you need to look that word up). It would be hypocritical if Steve didn't admit that such Apple products running on Windows suffer in performance and quality as compared to apps written directly to the Windows API's. I am not aware of any statement where Steve Jobs said "intermediate layers result in sucky apps, but our apps which use intermediate layers are not sucky."

 

[Dolorian]

Do me a favor. Go on the YouTube beta of HTML5. Works. No plug-in. No crash.

No plug-in, no crash but pixelated video and some bugs when loading the video sometimes in Chrome. I disabled the beta and now see YouTube in Flash without a single problem. Recently I was trying to watch the iPhone OS 4 keynote via Quicktime from the Apple site and the streaming was incredibly bad, the video would look distorted, pause, jump, etc. I ended up watching it with Flash in YouTube, again, without problems.