Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple fears that developers write crappy apps for their platforms. Has anyone looked at software that Apple has written for other platforms? iTunes for Windows, do I need to say more? iTunes is a sluggish, bloated, non-standard piece of crap and their other cross-platform apps don't look much better! Apple is an anal-introverted, fascist bunch of loosers, that's all!
 
...You seem to think anyone here cares and that shows how little you know.... I for one am sick and tired of the complications and wasted time installing and configuring 3rd party software to work correctly. In the nar future, I hope it will all be bundled into iLife.
...

LOL. iLife... So, you think anyone cares that you are so easily satisfied?

Ask Steve for a Popsicle, and all your needs are fulfilled. Including your sexual ones, judging by how far bent over you are :D
 
fun fun fun

I don't use Mail, Safari, Time Machine, iWork, iLife, iCal, iTunes, Image Capture, Aparture, Preview, Text Edit, these are off the top of my head. There are far better alternative applications out there.
Thankfully we still have a choice when you use OS X, if there was no choice, I personally would never buy Apple products, its just business after all said and done.
Oh, and the iPhone is terrible to use, it feels like a pebble you want to throw in the lake! There is a mystique and bloated hype about some of Apple's products, get out there and check out the other choices available, you might be surprised what your money can buy. :p
 
There is a solution for Unity and Adobe... a couple of years ago I and a couple of friends with an engineering background where implementing a code translator for Java and .NET (meaning that you can build your webapp in a metalanguage and then translate it to either Java or .NET). Needless to say that it turned out to be an overwhelming task for three people with jobs and families, so we gave up..

However, a company like Adobe has the muscle to do it since all they need to do is produce a Objective C output which has to be compiled with Xcode... Of course, if you don't want to make it superobvious to Apple, the translator should introduce some random tokens here and there.

This idea is open source, use it and improve :D
 
The implication is that Adobe is a partner, please, give me a break. Adobe (and Google) should have been hugging Apple, but as dumb as as they are, they arrogantly chose to hitch their wagon to Windows.

I love it that arrogant jerks are now slowly realizing that their little world is collapsing. The iPad will once and for all end the MS tyranny (Gates the robber baron) that we have all been subject to.

ROTFLOL

__________________
-as
Man and Woman become One - Have you thanked your married friends, your married colleagues and your married relatives? Why not?

+10

Not to mention, Adobe was determined 'not to be there' for Apple, when they needed them most, back in 1996, and consistently throughout the past fourteen years.

Sorry Adobe, You Screwed Yourself

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.

This is undeniably true, although someone here prefers to portray Adobe as victims - that they were completely unaware of the imminent discontinuation of Carbon.

You've got it completely backwards. If the developers use Apple's tools and Apple upgrades the OS, the tools automatically support the changes. If you're using Flash and the OS changes, 20,000 apps all break at the same time - and given Adobe's speed at fixing problems, they remain broken for months or years.
Precisely - why should Apple place themselves at the mercy of another company's unreliable roadmap? (again)

If Adobe should decide, eventually, to embrace an open source solution, no one will likely be stopping them.
 
So maybe I'll grant that something like the the Flash authoring tools might be good at allowing a game artist/designer to mockup some prototypes, but it shouldn't be the delivery vehicle when targeting small battery and resource limited devices.

First, once again, this isn't just about Adobe or Flash. The new TOS ban ANY code that is not C/C++/Obj-C, and any translation/compatibility layers. Now before you go on about how this is a mobile device and we need to have all-bare metal code (Assembly is banned too, BTW, so much for that theory), I will remind you ONCE AGAIN, that some of the top-selling games which Apple themselves tout as the exemplars of the iPhone's app superiority (i.e. Tap Tap Revolution which Steve Jobs showcased in his iPhone OS 4 presentation), would be banned under the new rules because they use a scripting layer.

And scripting layers, despite your supposed game industry experience, is the defacto industry standard approach to coding game logic for complex and large-scale games. You apparently weren't paying too much attention at your last game-industry job because all that "bare metal" coding was probably done for things like the rendering pipeline, audio engine, etc. It was, I can ASSURE YOU, not done for the game logic.

I'm going to say this one more time: with the new TOS, "sub-standard" games such as those Apple likes to feature and gloat about, and which are wildly popular, fun to play, and provide a great user experience, will be banned from the App store! There is no getting around this fact. You cannot claim that this move is going to weed out the bad and encourage the good. The facts are clearly against you.
 
You seem to think this affects only Adobe, which shows how little you know. =/

And Slepak said it best, "Crappy apps come from crappy developers" and not crappy tools.

Bingo.
This is bad in so many ways. The Anti Adobe people are so blinded they cant even see the rug being pulled from under them.
This is not an Apple vs. Adobe battle, this is an Apple vs. all 3rd party battle.
I wonder if all apps created in 3rd party apps are going to be pulled or restricted...
 
I can make a "crappy app" faster in xcode interface builder than in any cross compiler

You're exactly right. And specifically for these reasons:

1) The lower-level approach requires you to spend more time just making the app/game work, and less time refining the content and experience.

2) Your own code is going to have a much greater chance of containing bugs than intermediate layer code that has been tested by a large community/customer base, and a dedicated staff of testers and experienced developers.

For instance, I see comments on the App store all the time about crashy games (and I've experienced plenty of them myself). This is not surprising given that Obj-C is being used (not to knock Obj-C, but it's not a managed environment). Whereas I have several games out that use Unity, and I virtually NEVER hear anyone say their game has crashed. That's because Unity is a stable platform that has been developed for years. There's no way to put that kind of refinement into fresh code you have to sit down and write yourself in an unmanaged environment.

That's precisely the reasons modern gamedev studios use scripting languages of one sort or another for their game logic. They'll use high-optimized low-level code for things like rendering, et, but the code that makes the game what it is, is done in a higher-level, more "sandboxed" environment.

But I guess Jobs thinks he knows better than all the professional game studios out there... What an arrogant ass.
 
1) Apple's SDK rules allow Javascript, so all the arguments about speed and translation are pretty much moot.

2) Apple shoehorned a desktop OS into a mobile device, and uses lots of flashy effects that eat extra battery. We could easily argue that shouldn't have been done on a "resource limited device".

"Resource-limited" is relative of course. Back when I first started programming handhelds, the phrase truly had meaning. Nowadays the amount of cpu, memory and storage is insanely huge in comparison.

The rule changes are not about resources or speed.
 
In order for those potential application developers to invest the time and labor in learning and producing content for these closed platforms it must make sense in a financial and knowledge equity context.

I have been looking into offering iPhone/iPad application development services to clients and currently have come to the conclusion that it is not financially viable to do so due to the following factors:

1. Closed platform expertise is restricted to one hardware market, one web browser and control is in the hands of a single company.

2. The knowledge is only semi-transferable to open source (and therefor larger) platforms and alternative technology.

3. It is very difficult to justify the investment in development with the current marketing system inherent in the app store. It relies on additional marketing labor to get good visibility, promotion and sales, I'd estimate that with a specialist application time costs in marketing will be comparable to product development costs, if not require a far more substantial investment.

4. User experience. Currently the user experience on the iProduct hardware leaves much to be desired when creating an integrated rich media experience. Video is impossible to integrate seamlessly with the current operating system. Jumping out of a web browser to view video is extremely detrimental to user experience.

5. HTML and other standards based platforms are what has made the internet so useful, there are far reaching social implications which far outweigh corporate concerns and profit/market protection of why closed platforms such as iProduct are a danger to the free exchange of knowledge and information.

6. Due to the above factors it is very likely that the iProduct platform will have to change and adapt new standards as set by w3c, this means it is probably a wiser investment to concentrate on these standards at this point in time.

7. Development costs are being outsourced to the cheapest market, in this case it is not the UK, this is not economically sustainable for service industries in all regions in the long term and only benefits those organisations operating outside of national boundaries.
 
In order for those potential application developers to invest the time and labor in learning and producing content for these closed platforms it must make sense in a financial and knowledge equity context.

I have been looking into offering iPhone/iPad application development services to clients and currently have come to the conclusion that it is not financially viable to do so due to the following factors:

1. Closed platform expertise is restricted to one hardware market, one web browser and control is in the hands of a single company.

2. The knowledge is only semi-transferable to open source (and therefor larger) platforms and alternative technology.

3. It is very difficult to justify the investment in development with the current marketing system inherent in the app store. It relies on additional marketing labor to get good visibility, promotion and sales, I'd estimate that with a specialist application time costs in marketing will be comparable to product development costs, if not require a far more substantial investment.

4. User experience. Currently the user experience on the iProduct hardware leaves much to be desired when creating an integrated rich media experience. Video is impossible to integrate seamlessly with the current operating system. Jumping out of a web browser to view video is extremely detrimental to user experience.

5. HTML and other standards based platforms are what has made the internet so useful, there are far reaching social implications which far outweigh corporate concerns and profit/market protection of why closed platforms such as iProduct are a danger to the free exchange of knowledge and information.

6. Due to the above factors it is very likely that the iProduct platform will have to change and adapt new standards as set by w3c, this means it is probably a wiser investment to concentrate on these standards at this point in time.

7. Development costs are being outsourced to the cheapest market, in this case it is not the UK, this is not economically sustainable for service industries in all regions in the long term and only benefits those organisations operating outside of national boundaries.

The Internet Standards points dont make sense. Apple IS the one pushing the new standards.
 
You seem to think anyone here cares and that shows how little you know.
I don't know what it is, but most of us want to see Adobe die and burn in hell, then move forward with the new  standard.

We simply don't care about the effect as long as Apple feeds our needs. We know that when Apple gets more market share, WE get more market share and we can scratch records on our iPads.

Flash, lolz... Who gives a damn about Flash, you? If you need it that bad, get a Handriod or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that, if Apple wants to kill Adobe, they're going to kill Adobe and there's nothing you can do about it. The real question is when the smoke clears, what side will you be on? I for one am sick and tired of the complications and wasted time installing and configuring 3rd party software to work correctly. In the nar future, I hope it will all be bundled into iLife.

food for thought

I do not agree with your statements regarding Adobe, there is far more than just the Flash player that the software is used for. The only standards that should be adopted are open source and should be set by w3c. It has worked fine for the last 20 years.
 
incorrect.

Why? Just because you're behind your computer passing judgement?

A company with a closed enviroment can still push open technologies. It might be a literary fallacy but that dosent change the facts. Apple is using the iPhone/iPad (something closed) to push HTML5 web standards (Something open). There is nothing more to discuss.
 
MFC and Win32 need not apply. All I'm saying is if you want to be efficient on the Windows platform you stick with .Net and don't stray too far since it's their platform. The same thing with Apple, stick to Cocoa.

If Adobe wanted users to code in Actionscript then they should approach Apple to help male Cocoa similar to .Net in that multiple languages can be used by compiling to an intermediate language/JIT perhaps using Parrot VM or LLVM without an an adobe framework in the middle. Instead Adibe is trying to lock users onto their platform which is a problem as the don't control the platform and react slower when Apple introduces more features.

OpenGL lacks many of the clear API's and performance found in Direct X on the Windows platform. So if you want to get performance you go with the Microsoft Direct X API vs OpenGL.



Wait, are you saying that Win32 or MFC is easier to program in than QT ? No, the simple fact is there are a lot of frameworks out there which greatly simplify Windows GUI developement, not make it more complicated. QT is one, wxWidget another. These are all easier than even Windows.form or the dreaded Win32 API. In fact, in all my years, I've never encountered anything more complicated than the Win32 API.

Also, Windows developement is not locked into 2 or 3 languages which all amount to C. You can write Windows GUI apps in about any programming language there is through bindings either to the .NET framework or to 3rd party frameworks.

And to answer your other question: OpenGL.

Seriously, it's comments like these that make me wonder if people are actually qualified to post in such a thread... :rolleyes:
 
Apple fears that developers write crappy apps for their platforms. Has anyone looked at software that Apple has written for other platforms? iTunes for Windows, do I need to say more? iTunes is a sluggish, bloated, non-standard piece of crap and their other cross-platform apps don't look much better!
Well if its any comfort, iTunes on mac is also a sluggish bloated non-standard piece of crap...lol.
 
Why? Just because you're behind your computer passing judgement?

A company with a closed enviroment can still push open technologies. It might be a literary fallacy but that dosent change the facts. Apple is using the iPhone/iPad (something closed) to push HTML5 web standards (Something open). There is nothing more to discuss.

There is far more to discuss, yet it is only up for discussion within a framed context. Think about what you are advocating.
 
Apple is playing the "closed system game" for it's mobile devices. ....

History repeats itself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983

Don't quite see this. First, Apple has been playing the "closed" and tight approval game from the start. It isn't really a new shift in strategy.

However, this is quite unlike the crash. There are almost zero inventory problems here. It is all software inventory distributed electronically. In fact, Apple has been using that "limit inventory" strategy against Nintendo and Sony. Witness in the recent iPhone presentation where Jobs lulls over "puny" physical cartridge competitors with "thousands more games than they have". It is really an apples to oranges comparison.
Or the deluge of "iPhone rules" you'll get from folks saying other platforms are doomed because they don't have an inventory of 70K , 80K , or 100K titles.

Any "blowback" hasn't really happened for Apple. There is very little incremental cost in distributing these electronic copies of the games. So much so that few folks notice that the bulk of the inventory is really just freebies. There is also little blowback on Apple in that they have crushed the prices of software for their platform. They done a reduction of the cost of complements. Their hardware is expensive and the complementary part of the system ( 3rd party software) is dirt cheap. Apple has tons of sharecroppers farming their feudal estate for them. Another check plus for Apple. The low quality doesn't quite hurt as much because most of the software is dirty cheap and in many cases just "distract me while I'm in line for 5 mins" kinds of stuff. If it is worth a 5 minute giggle it has done its job.

Like the Megahertz marketing war .... Apple has turned this in part into "my title count is bigger than yours" war. In the struggle to keep up WebOS , Andriod , etc if not careful will add as much as possible as fast as possible just like Apple did.

Having enough titles do count in consoles/devices. It is a combo of having a enough core , unique titles and also some bulk and/or crossovers ( due to perception that in a large pile there must be a gold nugget somewhere. )


Apple may be at the point where have too many and do want to drive off new titles at this point. Or at least slow the influx so they can better monetize it. That doesn't bode well for the "race to the bottom" pricing wearing off any time soon though. Again little reason for Apple to remove that probem either because can monetize their "solution" to that also , iAds . the skim on that is actually higher than the skim on distribution. So Apple will be happy for a long time with a glut of developers chasing after the next gold rush.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.