Steve Jobs Offers Explanation About iPhone SDK Changes Restricting Adobe and Other Cross Compilers

[EagerDragon]

Adobe CS1 released Sept 2003. CS2 released in April 2005. CS3 in April 2007. CS4 in October 2008. CS5 in April/May 2010.

Mac Pro August 2006. (7 months before CS3)

Quite simple - Adobe has roughly an 18 to 24 month major release cycle. Apple switched processors in the middle of Adobe's cycle. Adobe added universal binaries in the next release after the Intel switch. What more could they reasonably do?




Yes, CS4 was 32-bit for Apples and 64-bit (in parts) for Windows. This was mainly Apple's fault, for changing their announced roadmap and dropping plans for 64-bit Carbon.



Fast forward one year, WWDC 2007, and it is announced that Carbon64 won't be provided.

Adobe was aware of these changes WAY before we were told. They knew already and decided not to switch to cocoa. They were aware of Apples plans as they been briefed.

 

[compuguy1088]

No, they are written for an EA internal layer that directs function calling to iPhone APIs and that's forbidden according to SJ.

If thats true, then if they are following the legal agreement, they should not allow future updates to any of the software because of this!

Note: I seriously doubt this will happen....

 

[firewood]

How big apple is would be irrelevant - what matters is whether their buisness is anti-competitive and is damaging another companies ability to compete in their market.

Which is perfectly legal for non-dominant market players (the #3 player).

It's not Apple's fault the Nokia isn't selling as much software on the dominant market platform (Symbian), and what Apple does here doesn't damage Nokia (it might even help them, temporarily...).

 

[KnightWRX]

We don't know what will be blocked by this, but as I stated before. Tools that aid development for the iPhone platform will likely go untouched. Many expect Unity3d will be fine.

Things that try to be wedge another platform on top, like Flash, will almost certainly be banned. For solid reasons.

You do understand that Unity is not iPhone exclusive right and that it doesn't let you write your apps in C, C++ or Objective-C ? So apps are not originally written in the languages approved by 3.3.1.

Unity is a wedge on top of the iPhone, just like Flash would be. The user needs to know Unity, not Cocoa to do work with it.

And again, there's nothing wrong with that, and until further evidence in a released product, there's nothing wrong with Adobe's approach either (do you have early access and could provide insight into the flaws of Adobe's packager ?).

In the end, it's all ARM machine code. The tool does not affect the quality.

That's exactly it. It's a numbers game. If 85% of Obj C apps are garbage according to somebody's metric, betting odds are that that number would go way up over 90% for Flash-to-App ones using that same quality metric, whatever it is.

No. This gives fault to the tool rather than the developers. ActionScript is a programming language and Flash/Flex are tools that use this language in order to provide programmers with a way to output ressources. By definition, it is the same thing as Interface Builder and Objective-C.

There is no fundamental difference if Adobe built a way to compile Actionscript into ARM machine code. In the end, it's all machine instructions getting executed to load files and output them through proper channels (audio, display) and to process input.

To try to give a tool a bigger role than that is quite simply either very ignorant of programming or just fundamentally paranoid and irrational.

 

[str1f3]

Adobe was aware of these changes WAY before we were told. They knew already and decided not to switch to cocoa. They were aware of Apples plans as they been briefed.

Not to argue with you, but from what I heard, Adobe didn't find out about Apple dumping 64-bit Carbon until WWDC. They said they were surprised. Maybe you know more but I don't know. Knowing Apple I always considered it a real possibility.

 

[compuguy1088]

There are an abnormal amount of people trying to use logic drenched in fallacy to try beef up their arguments. I wish it were easier to get it through thick heads.

The App Store is thriving on tons and tons of amazing apps written using Apple's native code and tools. Half of these posters make it sound like developers need these alternative compilers to thrive, or their demise will be at stake.

It sadly comes down to: "I'm really lazy. I need something else to do my work for me." -or- "I just don't have the time, but I still want a piece of the pie."

Dedication: If you want to write apps, learn how to code them using the way that is intended.

Apple put out its new SDK with a lot of new performance tools and APIs. These allow the app to take advantage of the system's hardware and software in the way that was intended - with integrity in mind. Apple wants great apps on their platform. How else will they continue to pull market share in the way that they are now? They're going to crush any loopholes just to make sure that their platform stays as solid as it has been.

Steve Job is stopping the war before it begins. You could say development could go either way if these alt. compilers continued to dip into the iPhone market, but why take the chance on something that could potentially dwindle the shine the app store gleams?

Apple acknowledges that there is a "gold mine" in app development for its iPhone / iPod Touch / iPad, and hosts their development tools for free at developer.apple.com - including tons and tons of documentation to help with code writing. They want things to be done right - the first time. He even alludes to this during his Multitasking presentation.

Apple's interpretation of "making it easier" would mean getting the work done right when the work is being done. If a developer doesn't want to be involved with the dedication required to use this platform, then they don't deserve the gold it offers them.

In that case, go ahead and write a game engine from scratch.....see how much fun that is to do.........

 

[WilliamLondon]

That's a perfectly legal practice as long as Apple's share of the cell phone OS market is maybe 3% total (or 15% smart).

No, that's simply not true. What *would* be considered monopolistic practices would be if there was only one application protocol on mobiles/cell phones, and Apple used its position as the dominant platform to restrict or in some way manipulate cell phone application development to its benefit. But that's not the situation and not even possible.

If Apple owned the platform run on *all* or *most* of the hardware manufacturers of mobiles/cell phones, then if (and only if) they used their dominant position to lock people in to their platform, that would be monopolistic, and that's what happened to Microsoft.

The fact of the matter is that there doesn't exist only one platform, and cell phones/mobiles don't require you to adhere to one application format. There is no monopolistic behaviour on Apple's part because there is no monopoly.

Even if Apple has 95% of the mobile/cell phone market, you can still go buy another mobile/cell phone. Monopolies exist when you are locked in, and then when they abuse their position, that's when it becomes illegal.

 

[compuguy1088]

BTW. OpenGL must be banned now too because it's also a layer and "middle ware". Well too bad 😀

Actually a good example of middleware would be SDL.......

 

[christian_k]

Sorry but that is coming off like the rant of a child and I don't what this has to do with the topic at hand considering Flash is proprietary . During the Jobs' era Apple has contributed to open source just as much as they've taken.

My concern is not closed source software. Of course it ok to earn money by developing and selling software. It is something else:

Microsoft has Windows Media player. Just imagine they would prohibit other Media apps on their Windows platform because of "duplicated functionality" (remember: Apple has used this as a reason to reject Apps) there would be no iTunes for Windows, no iTunes store and several millions of sold iPods less. But it is allowed. So Apple can earn money, customers can buy iPod if they like and even Zune users gain something because Microsoft must improve their products as well.

Locking things down hinders inovation.

Im am not a fan of Flash. But if Flash and this "Flash to iPod converter" or and 3rd party dev tools or the Apps created with it are really that bad, these tools will vanish from the market anyway.

As for your comment about the "walled garden", something tells me that you don't have a problem with needing to use Google services with Android or the massive amount of data that Google collects on its users. All they've done is provided a bigger "walled garden" for now.

I don't own an Android phone. Even if Google collects data (and I think they do) this is no excuse for others to do the same.

Christian

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't own an Android phone. Even if Google collects data (and I think they do) this is no excuse for others to do the same.

Christian

You don't have to use Google services with Android, that's just a paranoid myth that the iPhone pushers claim is true so they make it seem like you don't get access to the same optional services on the iPhone. You know, now that Google is bad according to Apple, can't really go around and claim you like their services... 🙄

Ah Apple, products for the "free-thinkers" indeed.

 

[firewood]

In that case, go ahead and write a game engine from scratch.....see how much fun that is to do.........

Ha! I know of at least two game engine companies that started off trying to write games, but switched to the game engine business because it was easier for them to figure out how to be successful that way than finishing the design and marketing a great game.

 

[christian_k]

You don't have to use Google services with Android, that's just a paranoid myth that the iPhone pushers claim is true so they make it seem like you don't get access to the same optional services on the iPhone. You know, now that Google is bad according to Apple, can't really go around and claim you like their services... 🙄

Ah Apple, products for the "free-thinkers" indeed.

I know. But at the moment I don't need a smartphone at all. I was interested in an iPad until it was clear that it has the same limitations as the iPhone so I bought a netbook instead. I think Apple being a solution for "free thinkers" is a thing of the past . It is something Apple lost on its way from a computer manufactor towards a consumer electronics company.

Christian

 

[firewood]

This gives fault to the tool rather than the developers.

You seem to be assuming that all developers lean towards all tools equally. Not true in my experience.

Some programming environments are better for beginners, some for experts. Logo and Squeak/Scratch might be great for kids, but I wouldn't try to write a pro audio editor in either, where a pinch of NEON/AltiVec/SSE assembly language might be helpful.

 

[griz]

If what devs want is "substandard" apps on more platforms, then Apple should let them do that. At least their app will also be available on iPhone.
But, if developing directly on iPhone has so many advantages then devs should see that and Apple should have nothing to worry about.
So the way I see it, this is just more Apple smoke being blown.

 

[EagerDragon]

Not to argue with you, but from what I heard, Adobe didn't find out about Apple dumping 64-bit Carbon until WWDC. They said they were surprised. Maybe you know more but I don't know. Knowing Apple I always considered it a real possibility.

YES, they found out about dumping carbon64 at WWDC, Carbon64 was being created for Adobe mainly becuase they did not wanted to use Cocoa yet, But..... They knew for several years that Apple wanted them to switch to cocoa. Finaly Apple gave up of catering to Adobe, and decided to cancel Carbon64 because Adobe was just going to use it and make no move to switch to Cocoa. Carbon64 was a hack for Adobe to wait more time before they would start using cocoa. Apple needed Adobe to continue making their PRO applications so it was doing what it could to cater to them while trying to getthem to change. This prolonged delay to switch was delying Apple from introducing other technologies that required the applications to switch to cocoa. Finaly they gave up and canceled the project and waited to WWDC to notify us and Adobe. About this time, the relationship was rather strained between Apple and Adobe. So it was their punishment for sitting on their hands for over two years to learn of the cancelation at WWDc.

 

[KnightWRX]

You seem to be assuming that all developers lean towards all tools equally. Not true in my experience.

Some programming environments are better for beginners, some for experts. Logo and Squeak/Scratch might be great for kids, but I wouldn't try to write a pro audio editor in either, where a pinch of NEON/AltiVec/SSE assembly language might be helpful.

You're assuming ActionScript is logo level programming, while it actually far surpasses Javascript. 🙄

 

[Ochyandkaren]

I know. But at the moment I don't need a smartphone at all. I was interested in an iPad until it was clear that it has the same limitations as the iPhone so I bought a netbook instead. I think Apple being a solution for "free thinkers" is a thing of the past . It is something Apple lost on its way from a computer manufactor towards a consumer electronics company.

Christian

You contradict yourself.

A free thinker avoid bandwagons.
They create their own path and follow no one.

 

[compuguy1088]

Go back and read his post again instead of blinding saying it is all Adobes fault.

I almost feel as Apple is using Adobe to hide the real reason for doing this and it is a lock in issue. There are a lot of other programing languages out there other than flash that could make great use of a middleware compiler.

Python, C#, V, .net ect. None of those are flash and none of them are allowed per apples new rules.

In programing yes you can learn multiple programing languages and many programs do but you will always be the best at only one language and will normally prefer to work in one language over the others if given the choice. Each language has its own strengths and weaknesses. Middleware allows people to over come limitation of other given language and work in one that they might be stronger in or prefer over the others.
It is pretty clear that a lot of the people here are completely missing that point and stuck on the Adobe BS.

I have some background in programming, and I would have to agree with what you said. Even though I have programmed in python, for example, that does not make me a great programmer in that particular language. Most of my background is in Java.

 

[NewProduct]

Ha! I know of at least two game engine companies that started off trying to write games, but switched to the game engine business because it was easier for them to figure out how to be successful that way than finishing the design and marketing a great game.

Here, here!

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple "punished" Adobe?

YES, they found out about dumping carbon64 at WWDC, Carbon64 was being created for Adobe mainly becuase they did not wanted to use Cocoa yet....

About this time, the relationship was rather strained between Apple and Adobe. So it was their punishment for sitting on their hands for over two years to learn of the cancelation at WWDc.

Yes, punishing your partners is good business. 😉

By the way, I don't believe that it was "punishment". In my opinion, it was more likely simple Apple arrogance, deciding to push the "better" way in spite of how much it hurts their customers.

 

[compuguy1088]

I think this is a good read on the situation, from Ars Tecnica:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/apple-takes-aim-at-adobe-or-android.ars

 

[iSee]

Apple won't let them, remember? You have some good points, and Adobe has been lazy, but Apple is partially to blame there. I think it was a long-term calculated business move to further demonize flash.

I hadn't heard about Apple blocking Adobe from using hardware acceleration for the Mac OS plugin. Can you post a link or info?

 

[cmaier]

Yes, punishing your partners is good business. 😉

By the way, I don't believe that it was "punishment". In my opinion, it was more likely simple Apple arrogance, deciding to push the "better" way in spite of how much it hurts their customers.

I think it was neither punishment nor arrogance. It was "we are spending too much money supporting carbon, and we might as well stop now."

 

[firewood]

But, if developing directly on iPhone has so many advantages then devs should see that and Apple should have nothing to worry about.

That's exactly the problem. In Apple's experience a huge number of devs don't see that, and make the wrong choice. Far too many stuck with Visual Basic on MSDOS, Carbon instead of Cocoa, IE hacks instead of HTML standards, are probably still using deprecated APIs where the App store review team's static analysis tools can see them.

Apple thinks they have a better vision about how and what devs should create to provide better end product for the user, and has occasionally proven right in that regard, especially compared to the least-common-denominator opinions of the day.

 

[Hurda]

The big ones (revenue-wise) will get a pass, similar to the bikini-affair a few weeks ago, and the smaller ones get the boot. Not that big of a deal.