OK, I take issue with your statement right there (emboldened). Sorry if you were given misinformation but Apple made it pretty clear in the SDK EULA from the beginning that "third party" interpreters and the like were officially off-limits and grounds for rejection in the app store. Be prepared to be burned if you play with fire.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs Posts 'Thoughts on Flash' Open Letter
- Thread starter Lordillingworth
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OK, I take issue with your statement right there (emboldened). Sorry if you were given misinformation but Apple made it pretty clear in the SDK EULA from the beginning that "third party" interpreters and the like were officially off-limits and grounds for rejection in the app store. Be prepared to be burned if you play with fire.
How many times are you going to bring up that you can't bring up local weather in your posts. Let me help you:
The Weather Channel App for iPad is available at no charge from the App Store or at http://www.itunes.com/appstore/.
AccuWeather.com announced its AccuWeather.com Cirrustm App for iPad is now available in the App Store.
WeatherBug Elite App for iPad Now Available on
App Store
Advanced Touchscreen Interaction with Optimized Local and Global Weather
Now you can finally enjoy your iPad
I'm sorry, but you don't know what your talking about. Do some research before trolling, it usually works out better!
Post that in the Unity forums and see the response you get. There are far more talented and successful developers than I who will take issue with your statement based on their considerable investment in the app store. If you're interested in that discourse, I encourage you to mention it there.
But I stand by my statement. Remember the cartoon app that got rejected for this reason:
Or, for example, any reason Apple chooses. The only reason that got fixed was because it was a pulitzer winning cartoonist who rose a public stink about it.
Then again, perhaps developing for iPhone OS is "playing with fire". In that case, it would explain why so many people get burned for different unrelated reasons. I'll certainly consider developing for other things.
But the iPhone OS is so damn cool.
Why is Unity owed compatibility with Apple's framework?
EDIT: I do read these forums enough to know that you have a game under development using Unity, and have a vested interest.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If you use this kind of logic to support why those interested should not even have an OPTION for Flash, it should apply to every single App in the App store too. Basically, anything outside of Apple's control has some potential to crash Safari and/or Mac OS X. Perhaps, using this logic, EVERYTHING not created by Apple's own hands should be blocked per this same reasoning?
And frankly, my own Macs will crash from time to time, but I never deem it a "piece of $#!t". But I might be in that "savvy" group. My Mom's Mac crashes from time to time, but she doesn't deem it a "piece" either. Even the average Joe understands that computing devices crash from time to time. As long as they can get rebooted, they deal with it and move on. It's hard to picture them holding it against a device forever, nor putting the device down to all their friends & family. Play that scenario with an iDevice crash, have them gripe about it to their friends, and those friends will be quick to say, "I run Windows, and you're griping about a crash?"
This blog is ridiculous.
Jobs makes the comment that Adobe is just now switching Photoshop to Cocoa vs Carbon. What he doesn't say is that Apple initially said they would support 64bit Carbon alongside Cocoa. Then Apple decided not to support 64bit Carbon while Adobe was in the middle of making 64bit Carbon versions of their apps. In addition, iTunes and Final Cut Pro are both still using Carbon. Even Finder is just now using Cocoa in Snow Leopard.
How can Jobs be a open web evangelist when Apple supports h.264?
Jobs makes the comment that Adobe is just now switching Photoshop to Cocoa vs Carbon. What he doesn't say is that Apple initially said they would support 64bit Carbon alongside Cocoa. Then Apple decided not to support 64bit Carbon while Adobe was in the middle of making 64bit Carbon versions of their apps. In addition, iTunes and Final Cut Pro are both still using Carbon. Even Finder is just now using Cocoa in Snow Leopard.
How can Jobs be a open web evangelist when Apple supports h.264?
Unity isn't owed anything, you are right. But many of the successful games that helped build up the app store were made with Unity. It seems like a bad bridge to burn, is all, especially with Unity develping android tools. It's just going to push people away from Apple. I don't want to see Apple fail, nor do I want to stop using a mac. This is why I feel so passionate about it. I make no apologies for my love of the iPad and iPod touch!
Netbooks, schmetbooks. Meh. Those are just mini-laptops.
From what I've read (today and previously), Adobe has repeatedly been asked to deliver on this but hasn't stepped up to the plate to demo what they themselves refer to as the "full internet experience" on *any* mobile/touch platform. For all the noise they've made, there still are no shipping Flash products for any smartphone.
You think if they had actually had this problem solved there wouldn't be a Flash plug-in for one of the Android phones today?
By not supporting Flash all of those BS flash ads don't ever pop-into the sites you're browsing. iAd is here to fix it and give Apple a cut of the $$.
The percentage of sites that use flash to "truly enhance the experience" is very small compared to the percentage that use it in a tacky tasteless or ad-generating manner.
*Disclaimer* I think all of Adobe's products are overpriced. I also think that's why Photoshop is the #1 pirated app out there. If getting bullied around by Apple helps them rethink their competitive stance, I'm all for it.
The percentage of sites that use flash to "truly enhance the experience" is very small compared to the percentage that use it in a tacky tasteless or ad-generating manner.
*Disclaimer* I think all of Adobe's products are overpriced. I also think that's why Photoshop is the #1 pirated app out there. If getting bullied around by Apple helps them rethink their competitive stance, I'm all for it.
Like my Acer 1410 that I'm typing this response from now? Yes, the iPad is no netbook replacement, its far short of one unfortunately. Its slick and nice for some of the things they made it for, but its not even a full featured replacement for Web content.
The iPhone is less in need of being full featured as most mobile browsers fall flat in some regard, though certainly Android is providing nice competition to Apple, and hopefully it will lead to more innovation down the road.
I'd buy an OSX non-Air smaller laptop if Apple made one, so it looks like we both understand the frustration. But if they blocked Flash from OSX, I'd leave and never look back, not because I demand Flash, but because I don't like my choices being made by someone else. I'm glad they're opening up APIs on the Mac side, and clearly Adobe is at the very least trying to make a better Flash.
"...although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."
Granted maybe Adobe really was the last major THIRD PARTY developer to adopt it but iTunes and Final Cut Pro are STILL both written in Carbon. So Apple remains the last major developer to fully transition to Cocoa--for both its flagship consumer and "professional" software.
That, along with Jobs outright dismissing the importance of Apple and Adobe's current shared interest in the "creative market" make it pretty clear that Jobs sees Apple's future as primarily iPhone OS-based and media consumption-centric.
Which makes sense--but FCS3 is a minor abomination and Apple needs to address that or sell the software to like Avid.
Granted maybe Adobe really was the last major THIRD PARTY developer to adopt it but iTunes and Final Cut Pro are STILL both written in Carbon. So Apple remains the last major developer to fully transition to Cocoa--for both its flagship consumer and "professional" software.
That, along with Jobs outright dismissing the importance of Apple and Adobe's current shared interest in the "creative market" make it pretty clear that Jobs sees Apple's future as primarily iPhone OS-based and media consumption-centric.
Which makes sense--but FCS3 is a minor abomination and Apple needs to address that or sell the software to like Avid.
Steve disses closed source tools...
..while only allowing XCode to be used on Macs.
News at 11.
..while only allowing XCode to be used on Macs.
News at 11.
Very true... It's unfortunate collateral damage... But I guess they gotta take an all or nothing approach with third party development tools. Having looked at Unity, I don't see why Apple would necessarily be opposed to it, since games made with it still have to be published through the App Store and not through some runtime in a browser. Maybe Apple will just buy it and integrate it into the SDK
My take away from this whole debacle is play the Apple way or don't bother at all. It sucks to not be able to kill multiple platform birds with one stone a la Flash or Unity, but as you say the iPhone OS is cool and people want their apps on it and are willing to make sacrifices to make it happen.
We're still waiting...
There is no OGG Theora support because it doesn't perform for crap, and there are no GPUs available that have hardware acceleration for it. I'm not sure support was "dropped"; I'm not aware that it was ever in there in the first place.
Um. And my PS3 games don't play on XBOX, and my copy of Windows Word doesn't run on my mac. What's your point?
Wow did you even read the article? Steve listed all of the reasons why they decided to not support Flash on their mobiles. Most of which are technical reasons. Apple desktops will continue to support Flash because it's the environment Flash is made for and not the mobile environment.
I understand that, and the argument is valid. But if Steve chooses to discuss "opennes" in any sense with regards to a computer platform or standard, I think the point is arguable.
Overall he makes good points.
Here we go again. John Nack has said approx. half of CS suite revenues come from the Mac platform. Google it. Adobe would be bankrupt in a matter of months if they dropped Mac versions from their CS product lines.
Jobs is so full of it, it's unbelievable.
The thing that NO ONE is talking about with regards to HTML five is web applications. What the hell do you people think is going to happen once people are able to bypass the app store by running robust web applications in their browsers? What happens when they can get all the web video they want for free (or at least outside apple's ecosystem) once HTML5 takes off?
Are you really so blindingly stupid that you think Jobs will let you do it because it's "open"?
LOL it's really like some people have selective memory when it comes to companies they love.
This move is pandering simply to buy more time in a closed and limited ecosystem to get more people hooked into it. Nothing more.
The thing that NO ONE is talking about with regards to HTML five is web applications. What the hell do you people think is going to happen once people are able to bypass the app store by running robust web applications in their browsers? What happens when they can get all the web video they want for free (or at least outside apple's ecosystem) once HTML5 takes off?
Are you really so blindingly stupid that you think Jobs will let you do it because it's "open"?
LOL it's really like some people have selective memory when it comes to companies they love.
This move is pandering simply to buy more time in a closed and limited ecosystem to get more people hooked into it. Nothing more.
Flash 3D experiments. check this out in Chrome Beta for Mac (for some reason it doesn't work for me in Safari - might require 10.1 which might be included in Chrome?). While running, Chome Beta was taxing my mac's CPU at 6.5%. this is some really cool, light weight stuff that could run on iDevices. currently, any 3D graphics on iDevices go thru apple and their app store first, and i'm willing to bet it will be like that for a long long time.
[EDIT] 10.1 is required. and i was very wrong about it's CPU usage. i read it incorrectly. it uses around 50% for both Safari and Chrome. but whatever, it's still awesome.
[EDIT] 10.1 is required. and i was very wrong about it's CPU usage. i read it incorrectly. it uses around 50% for both Safari and Chrome. but whatever, it's still awesome.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
There's nothing particularly wrong with that. I don't find fault with Apple's views- or your own- against the quality of Flash. I don't care for Apple deciding to block access to it for consumers. This is just like I don't care much for Apple arbitrarily deciding which apps are accepted and which are rejected if both groups of apps are functional and not outside of decency standards, etc.
In other words, I keep arguing for the user option... an ability to download a Flash player app just like any other app. If that app crashes my iDevice, at least I have the option to get that app and use it.
Otherwise, this "it's Apple's device" reasoning basically is a blank check. As Apple grows its influence, it can arbitrarily choose more and more about what we can and can't do with the products we buy from them. When Microsoft uses it's dominance to do this kind of thing, we rail against them to no end. When Apple does it, they are absolutely right for doing so, and here's a bunch of arguments why.
Sure this is Macrumors, so Apple fans are in abundance, but those fans don't have to automatically buy Apple's decisions in such things.
If HTML5 + H.264 + javascript is superior to Flash equivalents, it will eventually take over and rule the web for things that Flash does now. But just as OS X as a superior OS hasn't taken over as the dominant OS in use worldwide (yet), such migrations take time. An OPTION for users that want Flash on their iDevices is a win for them NOW, and probably for at least the life of the current generation(s) of iDevices. Those users that hate Flash wouldn't have to ever turn on that option, so it's no loss for them. And by the time that HTML5, etc has taken over for Flash so that there aren't sites and site features to be found that won't play on the next-next-next generation iDevice, that Flash option would just fade out of use, like any outdated app that loses favor to the newer & better solution.
An OPTION works for all involved, so that everyone can use their iDevice as they wish to use it- Flash on or Flash off.
And Apple fully admits this. Apple is only spouting about the virtues of the open web. Not their hardware platforms. So what is the problem here?
1) The ipad was never marketed as an netbook replacement.
2) Just because the device doesn't have flash doesn't mean its not full featured
but then again if all you go is to flash sites then those sites need to be updated
3) Android's mobile webbrowser by your defnition are not full featured either
Because there has yet to materialize a Real Flash client for android outside of a beta. Other than that show me a Smartphone that has Full Fledged Flash and Not flash light because there is a difference.
4) Google Admitted themselves that not all versions of the Android OS would be able to use Flash. Now considering that Android 2.1 is the Latest version of the OS. And that the Date for a Flash launch as been Delayed for the past 2 years countless times.
At this point the only version of Android devices that would have access to a full fledged FLash Client at best would be Froyo AKA Android 2.2.
So this means that Adobe has pretty much screwed 2 Gens of Android Devices. Because anything under 2.1 Wont Run Flash and in the end it doesnt't matter because Google Should Stand and deliver but seems like in this case all they can do is just STAND and NOT DELIVER
