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

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I think the problem is defining what better is.

How much "better" is getting an iPhone or new Macbook, etc? Seeing profits doesn't inspire me.

I agree. Greed should not be the defining feature of a company and that's what people like LTD gauge companies by. To me, the defining "success" of a company should be what they do to benefit mankind, not how successfully they soak mankind with 100-200% profit margins.

Who CARES if they have $40 billion in spare cash? A stock holder might care, but that just tells me that Apple could afford to lower their prices on stock clone computers that have no direct competition to those that want the Mac OS. They're gouging and they're getting away with it due to lack of competition in the hardware categories (which is where Apple makes nearly all its profits, not software or music sales). I don't expect the fanatics to agree on this point (to them Apple can do no wrong for any reason what-so-ever), but some of us in this world actually care more about people than we do the almighty dollar. Some people may not believe in an afterlife or a God and use that as an excuse to be self-centered and greed orientated, but some of us don't think we were put here on Earth to make millions or even billions of dollars outsourcing jobs to slave labor countries and Communists and then fly around in private jets while people are going hungry and doing without because that company took their job away in the name of greed. Yes, Steve's a great businessman...a real icon for the love of money. He's certainly not my hero.

 

[cmaier]

I agree. Greed should not be the defining feature of a company and that's what people like LTD gauge companies by. To me, the defining "success" of a company should be what they do to benefit mankind, not how successfully they soak mankind with 100-200% profit margins.

Who CARES if they have $40 billion in spare cash? A stock holder might care, but that just tells me that Apple could afford to lower their prices on stock clone computers that have no direct competition to those that want the Mac OS. They're gouging and they're getting away with it due to lack of competition in the hardware categories (which is where Apple makes nearly all its profits, not software or music sales). I don't expect the fanatics to agree on this point (to them Apple can do no wrong for any reason what-so-ever), but some of us in this world actually care more about people than we do the almighty dollar. Some people may not believe in an afterlife or a God and use that as an excuse to be self-centered and greed orientated, but some of us don't think we were put here on Earth to make millions or even billions of dollars outsourcing jobs to slave labor countries and Communists and then fly around in private jets while people are going hungry and doing without because that company took their job away in the name of greed. Yes, Steve's a great businessman...a real icon for the love of money. He's certainly not my hero.

Corporations do not exist to break even.

 

[lilo777]

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."

Well, I'll leave it to yuor then to pick up the better word I am torn between "dishonest", "without principles" and a few other words. But as you know, English is not my first language

Still I think hypocritical is right on point here. Let's make another step here. When a person says that others should not use widdleware (moreover explicitly prohibits it) because of concerns for the users while at the same time using midldleware himself (not literally) it's a pure hypocrisy. Is not it?

 

[cmaier]

Well, I'll leave it to yuor then to pick up the better word I am torn between "dishonest", "without principles" and a few other words. But as you know, English is not my first language

Still I think hypocritical is right on point here. Let's make another step here. When a person says that others should not use widdleware (moreover explicitly prohibits it) because of concerns for the users while at the same time using midldleware himself (not literally) it's a pure hypocrisy. Is not it?

When did Steve Jobs say anything about concerns for users?

Further, wouldn't it be consistent, not hypocritical, to say "middleware lends itself to crap software. Some such software is good, but much is crap. The easiest way to deal with it is to ban it. Our OWN software that uses middleware is good, so until MS bans such middleware, we will continue to use it."

Steve Jobs didn't say that, either, but if you're going to make up what he said, so will I.

 

[Great Dave]

I hear you, but I don't see the danger yet. I see it with Microsoft through every fibre of their corporate being, but with Apple I see restrictions that make sense to me.

Some people hate the idea of living in a gated community. I don't mind it.

Yeah, I think some people on here has been a little over-the-top.

And I agree to some extent that I don't think we are in the danger zone, yet. But, if it keeps up like this, then we really will have a situation.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Corporations do not exist to break even.

There is no rules that says companies must put greed and profit margins above everything else. A company can be profitable without being overly greedy. And how does Apple keeping $40 BILLION in petty cash benefit their stock holders, pray tell? Aren't corporations supposed to be handing out dividends when they make a profit? It seems like Apple is being a bit stingy in that regard if profit is the game they play. Japanese corporations traditionally have looked at long term goals, not short term profits. American companies look to the next quarter. But if you ask me part of the problem in this world is this mad dash for profits. A whole lot more people would be a whole lot better off if technology was used to better mankind instead of to control him. But then like I said, I'm not a worshiper of money so I don't expect those that do to agree or even understand such concepts. You can't take it with you and so it won't do you any good after your time is up on Earth.

Another strawman. As for YOUR posts, yes, your opinions are consistent - you attack Apple 100% of the time no matter what they do. If Apple bundled a check for $500 in every iPad, you'd find some way to complain about that.

This isn't a strawman argument you are making, it's just 100% patent BS lies. There are thousands of topics I reply to on these forums and the only time I rag on Apple is when Apple does something where they DESERVE to be ragged on (i.e. overt greed and ignoring their user base).

This is nonsense on so many levels.

First, if developers are not interested in Apple, why are there 200,000 AppStore apps - and many more developers who want to go there but have been rejected for making garbage?

Why is it that Apple has 10 times the number of mobile games of either Nintendo or Sony? Clearly, the iPhone ecosystem is the hot place to be for developers.

I believe I was talking about Mac computer gaming, not "Apps" on a phone. You obviously have no argument so you changed/distorted the subject matter. It is well known that several game developers for the Macintosh platform (again, I was not talking about the iPhone) have approached Apple with their concerns in the past only to be systematically stringed along or downright ignored. The fanboy replies are always along the lines of Macs aren't for gaming. What a great excuse.... Who decided that? Steve? Oh wait...that is my point.

As for the hardware APIs, you don't know what you're talking about. Hardware acceleration is available - you just have to use the proper tools. Have you heard of OpenCL? (there were other hardware acceleration APIs before that, but that's just one example). Adobe chose not to use the tools Apple provided - and then whined that it was Apple's fault. Why is it that no one else seems to have any trouble?

Sorry, but you are the one that doesn't know what the heck you're talking about. WTF does OpenCL have to do with playing back H264 video using hardware assist from the video drivers? What does OpenCL have to do with gaming for that matter? *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* ! Get a freaking clue before you hit reply. You are writing so much NONSENSE. OpenCL is a method of offloading GPU processing power for applications INSTEAD of using it for video. OpenCL won't help Adobe make flash betteer ONE BIT. Apple writes the video drivers for OSX and they do not provide access to the features of most card sets to developers. They don't even take advantage of most of them for their own use. This is a direct result of not prioritizing video drivers and insisting on writing their own instead of letting ATI or NVidia have access to the core operating system like they do with Windows and Linux.

What about Flash not trying to use all available CPU power to redraw a flash image as often as possible, even when that flash image doesn't change at all. Flash uses 100% of a CPU (and no matter how fast or slow a CPU is on your Mac, it will use 100% of one CPU) to draw a tiny advert that shouldn't even take 10% of a CPU. Hardware acceleration would only mean that Flash uses 100% of the GPU as well redrawing the same image ten times more often per second. And it would obviously help nothing with the crashes and hangs that Flash causes all the time.

My 2001 era (although upgraded) PowerMac has no trouble running Flash and I don't see it eating up 100% of my CPU for ads so I don't know what your computer's trouble is. As for crashes, I cannot think of a single time on any of my three computers running OSX where a crash or hang was caused by Flash or when running flash (and yes I've had plenty of freezes and hangs in OSX, which is pretty sad for a memory managed UNIX OS). So unless flash can cause those problems by simply sitting on the hard drive, I think the case for Flash being the evil of the world is overstated. I don't personally like Flash and I wouldn't mind seeing HTML5 replace it on most sites, but I don't like Steve telling me I can't run Flash either. The point is that I want to access the Internet and I should not be the one on the front line fighting for a better standard by not being able to access web sites that use it. Let them fight that war amongst themselves. Users should decide whether or not to enable Flash on their computers and even their iPhones, not Steve. It's just another example of Steve deciding what's best FOR you instead of listening TO you to find out what YOU WANT.

 

[cmaier]

There is no rules that says companies must put greed and profit margins above everything else. A company can be profitable without being overly greedy. And how does Apple keeping $40 BILLION in petty cash benefit their stock holders, pray tell? Aren't corporations supposed to be handing out dividends when they make a profit? It seems like Apple is being a bit stingy in that regard if profit is the game they play. Japanese corporations traditionally have looked at long term goals, not short term profits. American companies look to the next quarter. But if you ask me part of the problem in this world is this mad dash for profits. A whole lot more people would be a whole lot better off if technology was used to better mankind instead of to control him. But then like I said, I'm not a worshiper of money so I don't expect those that do to agree or even understand such concepts. You can't take it with you and so it won't do you any good after your time is up on Earth.

Actually, there have been many studies that show that not paying dividends is as good for shareholders as paying them. Among other things, by not paying dividends the shareholders make profits on the increase in stock price rather than on dividend earnings, and the tax rate is typically lower for capital gains.

And there actually IS a rule that says corporations must put profit margins above everything else. The general rule is "A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." Some states, for example California, disallow charitable contributions except for specific corporate benefit. See, for example, Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich. 459, in which Ford tried to do the right thing for the community and his employees and the courts smacked him down. Greed is what corporations are for, and if a corporation is not sufficiently greedy it will be successfully sued by its shareholders.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Corporations exist to make a profit

Actually, there have been many studies that show that not paying dividends is as good for shareholders as paying them. Among other things, by not paying dividends the shareholders make profits on the increase in stock price rather than on dividend earnings, and the tax rate is typically lower for capital gains.

And there actually IS a rule that says corporations must put profit margins above everything else. The general rule is "A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." Some states, for example California, disallow charitable contributions except for specific corporate benefit. See, for example, Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich. 459, in which Ford tried to do the right thing for the community and his employees and the courts smacked him down. Greed is what corporations are for, and if a corporation is not sufficiently greedy it will be successfully sued by its shareholders.

Absolutely true. While there are some grey areas (I really don't like tobacco companies, or, Mobil/Exxon's anti-environmental stances), as a (very indirect) owner of many public companies, I want them to make a profit.

That is why we need lots of laws and regulations -- to level the playing field between monopolies and small businesses, and to enforce ethical/moral behavior for *every* company when ethical behavior isn't profitable. As a shareholder, those regulations make me happy because I want the companies that I invest in to behave ethically as well as profitably.

What does this have to do with Apple vs Adobe? Well, it is funny to hear Adobe of all companies complaining about being pushed around by Apple!

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

I don't personally like Flash and I wouldn't mind seeing HTML5 replace it on most sites, but I don't like Steve telling me I can't run Flash either. The point is that I want to access the Internet and I should not be the one on the front line fighting for a better standard by not being able to access web sites that use it. Let them fight that war amongst themselves. Users should decide whether or not to enable Flash on their computers and even their iPhones, not Steve. It's just another example of Steve deciding what's best FOR you instead of listening TO you to find out what YOU WANT.

I understand your point here. But-- why do you prefer Adobe telling you that you have to use Adobe's proprietary Flash, versus, on the other hand, open protocols for most of what Flash does? How much "choice" do you really have, when the content you want to access is available via Flash only?

 

[qtx43]

Well, I'll leave it to yuor then to pick up the better word I am torn between "dishonest", "without principles" and a few other words. But as you know, English is not my first language

Still I think hypocritical is right on point here. Let's make another step here. When a person says that others should not use widdleware (moreover explicitly prohibits it) because of concerns for the users while at the same time using midldleware himself (not literally) it's a pure hypocrisy. Is not it?

I'd say it's not hypocritical because Jobs doesn't set the rules of the game for writing programs for MS Windows. MS does. MS and Apple both do annoying things, but they're very different kinds of things due to their different business models. In the Windows World, pretty much anything goes software wise, and MS tries very hard to make very old pieces-o-crap run. Even ones that call undocumented APIs. Although, at some point that breaks down, MS is basically happy when users have bloated software, because that means new computers are required and hence new versions of not just the OS, but their Office Suite.

 

[eskalation.dk]

What about Flash not trying to use all available CPU power to redraw a flash image as often as possible, even when that flash image doesn't change at all. Flash uses 100% of a CPU (and no matter how fast or slow a CPU is on your Mac, it will use 100% of one CPU) to draw a tiny advert that shouldn't even take 10% of a CPU. Hardware acceleration would only mean that Flash uses 100% of the GPU as well redrawing the same image ten times more often per second. And it would obviously help nothing with the crashes and hangs that Flash causes all the time.

You have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. YES Flash can suck up 100% of one processor, so can any other coding language - but if you know how to code actionscript, how Flash functions, how to use event listeners and how to handle memory, this won't happen. Any good developer knows this. Flash only redraws the elements that you move or edit, not the whole "flash-image", every element in the flash file is a seperate sprite, image, movieclip or whatever you want it to be. A dormant flash file uses nearly 0% cpu power, even if it is full of data and images, just as it should. Stop dicking around and writing about stuff you know nothing about!

Flash doesn't cause crashes, retarded developers does. People who doesn't debug their applications cause crashes. I do not know anything about the Cocoa Touch language or C/C#, but i bet that if i wanted to, i could write an app that would drain the battery just as fast as any flash application could..

The problem in my opinion doesn't lie with Flash as a platform, but with the internet ad agencies who displays them on websites. They need to test and check their ads more thoroughly before spamming them out on the net, just like Apple does when they are reviewing apps.

I understand your point here. But-- why do you prefer Adobe telling you that you have to use Adobe's proprietary Flash, versus, on the other hand, open protocols for most of what Flash does? How much "choice" do you really have, when the content you want to access is available via Flash only?

What if i want to use an iPhone app that isn't on the iPhone (and yes i have and iPhone, i love it)? Same problem. It is how the world works. You HAVE a choice, you don't have to use or see Flash, but some people (me included) loves Flash, and sees the potential in it, Flash is always on the forefront of what you can do on the web, because it is a closed format just like the iPhone OS, but Adobe still has a free (closed-source) SDK for all developers to use, so everyone has a chance to get their hands into Flash. What Apple does is taking away peoples ability to choose - which in my opinion is wrong and a bad business practice.

 

[rhett7660]

There is no rules that says companies must put greed and profit margins above everything else. A company can be profitable without being overly greedy. And how does Apple keeping $40 BILLION in petty cash benefit their stock holders, pray tell? Aren't corporations supposed to be handing out dividends when they make a profit? It seems like Apple is being a bit stingy in that regard if profit is the game they play. Japanese corporations traditionally have looked at long term goals, not short term profits. American companies look to the next quarter. But if you ask me part of the problem in this world is this mad dash for profits. A whole lot more people would be a whole lot better off if technology was used to better mankind instead of to control him. But then like I said, I'm not a worshiper of money so I don't expect those that do to agree or even understand such concepts. You can't take it with you and so it won't do you any good after your time is up on Earth.

<snip>

Please show me the SCC ruling/law that states this. No they do no have give a cent back re: dividends. Sorry there are more that don't then do.

 

[lilo777]

When did Steve Jobs say anything about concerns for users?

Further, wouldn't it be consistent, not hypocritical, to say "middleware lends itself to crap software. Some such software is good, but much is crap. The easiest way to deal with it is to ban it. Our OWN software that uses middleware is good, so until MS bans such middleware, we will continue to use it."

Steve Jobs didn't say that, either, but if you're going to make up what he said, so will I.

Come on! Are you trying to fool yourself? "When did Steve Jobs say anything about concerns for users?" Really? So, when Steve says that middleware produces crap applications he is not talking about users? Should I read it as: " Middleware is bad because it causes us to lose profits?". If that is the case then I agree with you. He is being totally honest here

 

[Great Dave]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NebulaClash

The problem with going with a propriety solution that your users depend on is that vendor can one day pull a Microsoft on you. It makes no difference what current management does or says; a new CEO can come along and make your life difficult.
...

Actually, replace the word Microsoft with Apple. Because that is what Apple is doing, they have decided to lock things down - just like the app store and the totalitarian decision on what stays and what goes. Now they are changing their policy and saying you can only use the tools they decide you can use. This isn't open development.

Again, as I stated before, I am no Flash fan, but I think Apple is out-of-line here.

Also, I myself am worried, if a war breaks out with Adobe and Apple. I mean what if Adobe just dropped support for Apple or gave us half-assed versions of their software?

I mean I still remembering being in shock at a Photoshop conference when Bert Monroy laid the bomb and said he had switched to a PC, because Photoshop lacked the features he needed on the mac. Ouch!

Seriously, I would have to switch myself if there would not be any further Adobe programs for the mac.

Actually, someone else thought that Apple is behaving like Microsoft...

Now Apple is behaving like mid-90s Microsoft

 

[czachorski]

I'm not a worshiper of money so I don't expect those that do to agree or even understand such concepts.

So you work for free and live off the fruits of your own efforts for food, shelter, water, etc, right? Or else you must work for the bare minimum to provide you with shelter and sustenance, and forgo anything above that, right? After all, taking anything more from others would be solely for your own personal greed and "profit", because clearly, you can live without it, because you don't worship money.

 

[UTclassof89]

Flash doesn't cause crashes, retarded developers [do].

Exactly right!

The zealots who pan Flash in these threads (usually who have "kill Flash" or some such tripe in their signature) will never admit this.

 

[Journojulz]

The zealots who pan Flash in these threads (usually who have "kill Flash" or some such tripe in their signature) will never admit this.

Its true. Guns don't kill people - people kill people.
But the gun helps.

 

[Bytor65]

Flash doesn't cause crashes, retarded developers does. .

Flash isn't C where programmers can screw up pointers. This is a scripting platform, anything the user does should be bounds checked by the tool.

Much of the problem lies with the developers of the flash plugin for the various operating systems. It has been historically buggy (especially on Linux/Mac) and a source of security issues. I haven't used it on a Mac, but on Linux, it crashes a lot. If it is more stable in one OS (Windows) than another (Linux) it shows poor work done by the Adobe Linux team building the plug in.

So maybe it is the developers, but if so, they are employed by Adobe. A scripting language tools shouldn't let the user go out of bounds.

 

[cmaier]

Come on! Are you trying to fool yourself? "When did Steve Jobs say anything about concerns for users?" Really? So, when Steve says that middleware produces crap applications he is not talking about users? Should I read it as: " Middleware is bad because it causes us to lose profits?". If that is the case then I agree with you. He is being totally honest here

You are putting words in his mouth then using them to brand him a hypocrite.

That doesn't seem fair, does it?

 

[charlituna]

I'd like to decide what I put on my iPhone or iPad or any other Apple product I purchase. I don't need the company telling me how or what I can do with the product.

Until the laws change they can and you'll have to get over it or hack it and risk things gong wrong.

 

[torbjoern]

Flash is $#|77y. Reading online newspapers would totally drain my iPhone battery in less than an hour.

 

[lilo777]

You are putting words in his mouth then using them to brand him a hypocrite.

That doesn't seem fair, does it?

OK, let's get accurate then. Steve 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."

What's your interpretation here? This is him explaining why Apple has just banned the use of middleware for OS 4.0. He clearly does not want to allow developers to use middleware because this would result in "production of sub-standard apps". Now, there might be different reasons why he is concerned: he cares about users or he - as a developer (although he is not) - can not stand sub-standard apps in principle. In both cases, since he does use middleware in Apple own applications, is a hypocrite. Do you have any other possible explanation of his motives?

 

[KnightWRX]

Flash isn't C where programmers can screw up pointers. This is a scripting platform, anything the user does should be bounds checked by the tool.

I submit the following Bash script (which is just a scripting platform, sort of, and anything the user does should be bounds checked by the tool right ?) :

:(){ :|:& };:

If you are game, copy/paste into Terminal.app and see how even scripts that have no access to pointers can still screw up a system.

 

[UTclassof89]

Its true. Guns don't kill people - people kill people.
But the gun helps.

So do cars. Should we ban them too?

 

[cmaier]

OK, let's get accurate then. Steve 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."

What's your interpretation here? This is him explaining why Apple has just banned the use of middleware for OS 4.0. He clearly does not want to allow developers to use middleware because this would result in "production of sub-standard apps". Now, there might be different reasons why he is concerned: he cares about users or he - as a developer (although he is not) - can not stand sub-standard apps in principle. In both cases, since he does use middleware in Apple own applications, is a hypocrite. Do you have any other possible explanation of his motives?

Cute how you ignored "and hinders the progress of the platform.". He clearly stated he cares about apple's platform, and didn't say a word about users. He admits the new rules are to sell more stuff (advance his platform).