Apple: Closed, Proprietary Systems Are Bad (Unless They're Our Own)
from the do-as-I-say-not-as... dept
Steve Jobs fired the latest salvo in the ongoing Apple-Adobe spat today, with his "Thoughts on Flash" posted on the Apple site. In short, he says that Adobe looking out just for its own interests in drawing developers to its "100% proprietary" Flash ecosystem while Apple supports a great, open standards-based world. But just as we pointed out a couple of weeks ago when Apple moved to block cross-platform development tools, regardless of what Apple says, its interest is locking developers into its Apple-controlled and dominated ecosystem. Nearly every accusation Jobs levels at Adobe and its products can be made about Apple and the way it seeks to control iPhone app development. Jobs brings up Apple's support for open Web standards, but that's really little more than a red herring to distract attention from how Apple wants to lock down developers into its own ecosystem. Jobs makes it clear that he has no interest in developers using any platform apart from the iPhone, and any tool that helps them do so is worthy of his scorn. So for him to talk about supporting Web standards -- with the point being that they're standards, available across platforms -- is disingenuous when Apple's strategy for apps is guilty of pretty much everything he accuses Adobe of. None of this, on a strategic level, is particularly reprehensible, they're just business decisions (even if we don't agree with the approach). But Apple's apparent insistence on playing by a different set of rules to everyone else, and the hot air that accompanies it, grates just a little bit.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that this is the best you can do only emphasizes the restrictive nature of Apple. Apples EULA does everything SHORT of doing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless you are a programmer (I am), don't make stupid assumptions about "reusability of code" because Apple's SDK is in and of itself proprietary. This isn't Java.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're kidding me, right? Have you read their Eula? Apple makes Microsoft look like GPL software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Microsoft Did It
If Apple does it, all are happy supporters/fans of it.
Many will say that Microsoft has a near monopoly in the desktop market, to which I counter: So does Apple in the smartphone and music markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If Microsoft Did It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If Microsoft Did It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If Microsoft Did It
It's because if Microsoft does it, they're abusing their monopoly position. Apple has no monopoly position to abuse.
In the US, it's not illegal to be a monopoly, but once you are, you cannot engage in certain actions that are available to non-monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No different than other "platforms"
You can't expect Microsoft to support development of PS3 games using it's developer tools.
Now, I do understand that "programing" can be done for multiple "platforms" in the sense of "operating systems"... and that's the card Adobe is trying to play. However Apple just doesn't allow that card in their deck. Get over it. If you want to play in Apple's game, you have to play by their rules. Just like playing with MS's 360, Sony's PS3, and Nintendo's Wii, DS, etc. Apple states that their deck contains open standards: HTML5, CSS, etc. They are laying out the playing field for developers to know what tools/standards they can expect to be supported on their platform. That doesn't include Flash.
The iPhone, touch, and iPad are specific "platforms" with specific guidelines. Apple is making sure there isn't another layer of complexity from a 3rd party developer tool intergraded into apps to run on their "platform".
If this was Google saying that their OPEN Android platform can't run Flash, I could understand people complaining. But this is a platform that Apple controls and provides the tools to utilize it. They say no Flash, so there is no Flash.
P.S. I love reading TechDirt, just registered and this is my first comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
So why does Google get held to a higher standard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
Apple is saying that they will reject native, Objective-C applications which were generated by Adobe's cross-compiler (and presumably GarageGames' and Unity3D's as well).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
"No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."
It's simple, really. Apple forbids Flash, Java, Panda3D, Unity, etc. through this clause.
They will also restrict HTML5/JavaScript which they keep pointing out. They require everything that resembles an "application" to be downloaded through the iStore just as they require all music to be downloaded through iTunes on an iPod, so they will not support HTML5/JavaScript either except in a crippled form (BTW for other readers, Flash is supported through custom MIME types in the HTML5 spec).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
Also, no its not Apples phone, its the customers who bought them. If the customers should be able to do what ever they want with their phones. Including using tools that apple selectively blocks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
Apple is restricting the installation of unsigned, unapproved software to keep malware off of the iPhone/iPad platforms, an attitude I wholeheartedly support that has nothing to do with whether I support Apple or not.
They have restricted the use of third party tools, not just Adobe tools, for perfectly reasonable technical reasons. Anybody that read other motives into Apple's statements about that is just blowing smoke.
Adobe software on the mac has been junk for ten years. Late, buggy and resource hogs, all of it. Even people that use it - ESPECIALLY people that use it - will tell you that.
Steve was right up front in telling the world that they don't want their platform being held hostage buy a third party - a perfectly honest position to take.
Considering the almost 200,000 apps in the app store, and the fact that Apple just can't make enough iPads, and are selling iPhones like hotcakes all over the world proves that the general public couldn't care less about this geek brouhaha.
Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
Also, your points are all pretty weak. EULA's have never been taken to court, so just because it says it in the EULA doesn't actually make it legal. I do *NOT* see how Apple creating a walled garden that approves everything on their platform is a good thing. It creates a monopoly and severely hampers the system. Your phone/handheld device is now held hostage to the whims of Apple. You *DO NOT OWN IT*. They restricted the use of third party tools for other motives. Cross compilers can easily create code better of better quality than some actual programmers. There's no reason to disallow it. If you want to only allow quality code, than review the source code. You're obviously not a programmer if you follow this line of logic. The platform would NOT be held hostage to a third party. That's ridiculous. Show me how that would be the case. If Apple updated the OS and it broke Flash, Flash will provide an update. There's no way that Apple would wait for Flash first. They never have on the Mac and I don't see why they would on a phone.
Considering how any service that says they can provide flash on the iphone/ipad/ipod generally have their servers crash immediately upon release, I'd have to say they DO care about Flash.
So yea, your points don't make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
What monopoly? On their own devices? Read up on monopolies, they concern a market that includes ALL devices sold in that market.
"They restricted the use of third party tools for other motives. Cross compilers can easily create code better of better quality than some actual programmers. "
Prove those motives. You can't, because Apple has publicly stated their goals here, and you have no proof of your assertions.
Apple's statement clearly notes that you are wrong about code, too. It may produce better code than some developers, but that says little of a salutary nature about the programmers involved!
"The platform would NOT be held hostage to a third party."
Go back and reread Steve's statement. If a third party makes the software that you use to write apps for Apple's platform, and that third party, such as Adobe, fails to update that software to take advantage of new hardware features released by Apple for months if not years after those features are available, then they ARE being held hostage by that third party. that is specifically what Apple will no longer tolerate.
" If Apple updated the OS and it broke Flash, Flash will provide an update."
The iPhone and iPod touch have been out for three years, and Adobe has NO mobile Flash app for it. Want to try again?
So, no your comments don't make sense at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
China is restricting Internet access to protect its Citizens from "harmful" content. In both cases, maybe an interesting place to visit, but not a place where I'd want to "live".
>> They have restricted the use of third party tools, not just Adobe tools, for perfectly reasonable technical reasons.
They restrict 3rd party tools so they could have 100% control of everything including and most importantly their latest endevour which is online ads. I've yet to see ONE valid technical argument for these new limitations.
>> Steve was right up front in telling the world that they don't want their platform being held hostage buy a third party
And now a lot of people in "the world" are telling Apple/SJ they don't want to be held hostage to Apple.
In addition, Apple continues to burn bridges with these other major players in the IT industry. He may think he is Dr. Evil and his hairless cat that can control the world, but everyone else realizes that to be successful in the long term you need positive partnerships.
>> Considering the almost 200,000 apps in the app store, and the fact that Apple just can't make enough iPads, and are selling iPhones like hotcakes all over the world proves that the general public couldn't care less about this geek brouhaha.
Up until about a year ago there wasn't any real choice in the market. Now that we have a viable alternative in the market (i.e. Android and hopefully WM7 soon enough), we'll see.
Android is selling 60k worth of handsets each day now. Just topped the 50k APP mark and did something like 9k of new APPS last month and all the graphs I've seen show an increasing growth curve in all areas. Just maybe the world does care about all this geek brouhaha and didn't have a viable option until now???
Also, when Stephen Colbert does a segment on all this 'geek brouhaha', I think this proves that the issues aren't just 'geek focused'.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
Apple doesn't have the power to oppress or imprison you, and isn't restricting your ability to see content based upon political party.
China can, and does. BIG difference, stupid analogy.
"I've yet to see ONE valid technical argument for these new limitations."
Then reread Steve's statement, it is obvious you didn't.
"And now a lot of people in "the world" are telling Apple/SJ they don't want to be held hostage to Apple.
In addition, Apple continues to burn bridges with these other major players in the IT industry. He may think he is Dr. Evil and his hairless cat that can control the world, but everyone else realizes that to be successful in the long term you need positive partnerships."
Uh, yeah, with millions of units being sold, and thousands of developers till developing apps, Apple has burned its bridges. Sure, and I've got a bridge for sale. Most consumers couldn't care less for this brouhaha, don't understand the reason you are upset, and still are giving Apple their money for a product that does exactly what they want it to do.
Go ahead and buy your Android, I doubt that Steve will mind a bit.
"Now that we have a viable alternative in the market (i.e. Android and hopefully WM7 soon enough), we'll see. "
Yeah, we will. the iPad sold its first million in 28 days, less than half the time it took the first version iPhone.
We will see, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
That's putting it in a far too good of a light. Put their PR statements out of your head for a moment and look at the recent developments. How about iTunes? iStore?
What is iTunes' purpose on an iPod? It seeks to generate revenue for Apple, help prevent piracy, and tries to provide an easy service in exchange for downloading music.
The iStore's purpose is the same. Flash allows development of web *applications*, applications not downloadable through the iStore. This is also why they are restricting their support of JavaScript and HTML5. Again, back to the developer agreement:
"No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."
Reason? Simple. Interpreters and VMs not under Apple's control allow applications to be created that can be distributed without the iStore. That's really the gist of it. I'm not bashing Apple, but this is 100% clear to developers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
If you were able to run your PS3 game in your 360 (when it's clearly not supported), and it crashed all the time, I'm sure you would call MS, then complain when they wouldn't support/help you. So MS doesn't support PS3 games, just like Apple doesn't support Flash in apps submitted for Apple's platform.
If you really want to do what ever you want with your hardware, go ahead and hack/mod it to your hearts content (jailbreak). Because you are stating that you don't want support from Apple because you don't like what they offer. If that is the case, you shouldn't purchase X "i" device. Let me get on the phone with MS to see about that PS3 game support.
@ Anonymous Coward: Google clearly doesn't make hardware for their Android OS to run on. They are very much like MS and Windows. In this case Google allows Android to be more open than Windows for computers. Companies can take the Android OS and tweak it to work with their hardware, etc. Apple does not allow this; it's their OS for their hardware. If they did allow the OS on other hardware (and allowed the hardware companies to modify it) that would be different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
Objective C is the language Apple has chosen to allow for the core of the program but you can easily wrap code from other languages into it.
Oh man! I can't instantly port everything by running an automated tool and have to program to make my program work. If it was that easy everyone would be a program. Just think real hard, click a button and it's done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
Some seem to have let themselves get confused by Apple's PR, but it really comes down to the iStore. This is why you won't be seeing something like HTML5/JS games on your iPad either running in Safari. They'll be ensuring all such things which resemble a full application will be downloaded through the iStore.
Bottom line: the iStore is the heart of this issue much as iTunes is to music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
If Adobe really wants flash on the iPhone they ought to enable tools for the developers in the jailbroken iPhone community to do so. If they want to have flash in the standard iPhone ecosystem then by all means keep complaining.
The cult of mac is a red herring. People have been able to break all these rules since the earliest days of the iPhone and Adobe has not sought to take advantage of this. It isn't like it takes much technical knowledge to do this anymore. Just download and run an app while the phone is plugged in. Reading skills may be required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
Way to pick which rules someone is allowed to break and which ones you can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
Every system allows that extra layer of "complexity" (normally its done to make things simpler, but I digress).
I really do enjoy how you say all the systems are the same, but then go on to say how Apple still prohibits more than any other system you mention and to just get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
You are wrong. MS, Sony and Nitendo don't lock developers into using a particular toolset. You have to use their sdk but there is nothing in their EULA that requires you use certain development tools or that you cannot have a translation layer. Apple does.
Apple has done this before and it has been to their loss. First they did it with their OS, then they actively discouraged game developers from making games on the Mac... maybe the third time is the charm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
The Mac OS has no such restrictions, as Flash runs on it, albeit buggy and resource hogging to boot. Wanna try again?
Macs are selling at rates better than industry average, iPads are outstripping supply, iPhones and iPod Touches are also selling like hotcakes all over the planet.
The fact that gamers don't write for the Mac has nothing to do with Apple development tools, but everything to do with Microsoft locking them into THEIR platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
I develop Microsoft applications, but I don't use a single Microsoft tool to do so. There's no such requirement, either contractually or technically. I'm free to use the toolset and techniques that are best for the job -- Microsoft doesn't have any say or restriction on that.
Apple, however, does. I am restricted contractually and, as far as Apple can make it so, technically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
First of all, Flash is *not* a resource hog. It uses garbage collection of very much a similar implementation as JavaScript, and both are based on ECMA. They're practically identical, but Flash currently supports a lot more features.
That said, Flash applications are generally created by web designers, not professional software engineers. It doesn't matter if they're using JS or AS, both are going to leak resources and hog up CPU exactly the same way if they are not coded properly.
And finally, when it comes to being buggy, draining battery life, having security vulnerabilities, etc., that true of Safari's implementation of JavaScript, Apple's officially-supported alternative. You do realize the alternative that Apple is supporting (although in a crippled way), right? They still want web applications from web designers, only in their language, exhibiting the same basic problems when coded the same way (incorrectly).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
P.S I love reading TechDirt as well, I also just registered and this is my first comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
So yes, other platforms that are even more closed in nature (game platforms) have the liberty that apple denies you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
No it isn't. Even the Nintendo is not locked down to this degree.
You have to be completely ignorant of how software is developed to buy into this sort of idea. Abstractions are the bread and butter of computer science. Cross platform tools are heavily used in the games industry. Some of the earliest widespread use of the GNU tools (upon which Linux is based) was by console developers.
A tool-chain with source code readily available is much easier to re-deploy for a new hardware architecture.
Apple's latest stunt is nothing like what goes on in console programming. It certainly doesn't resemble what goes on in other computing environments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
You can't expect Microsoft to support development of PS3 games using it's developer tools."
Yes, but Microsoft doesn't get to determine whether or not you get to sell the game that you programmed using their SDK. Likewise, Adobe does not have veto power that stops developers from releasing applications written using Flash.
Open SDKs are wonderful, but that isn't even what this is about. A closed SDK is one thing. Complete control over what developers are allowed to do with the SDK they licensed is quite another. Apple is as closed and proprietary as it gets. If you can't see that, you're just a blind fanboy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No different than other "platforms"
This is quite different. What Apple is saying is that applications cannot provide embedded interpreters or VMs other Apple's own JavaScript.
"No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."
This is the real reason Apple banned Flash. Their development agreement prohibited Flash from the very beginning, but this agreement would cause a lot of ruckus among users if they understood what it meant so they made up a lot of PR reasons against it (some of which are legitimate but not the real reasons they prohibit it).
It also means no Java VMs provided through a Safari VM, no Unity, no Panda3D, etc. Your web content is going to be restricted to purely JavaScript, and a crippled form at that as Apple also ensures that the implementation of JavaScript can only be used to provide web content and not full-fledged web applications. Apple is going to make sure all full-fledged applications are downloaded through their iStore, and the developer agreements make that crystal clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know, it's amazing, Microsoft simply adds a web browser to their operating system and the government goes bazerk. In contrast, Sony does something far worse (adding rootkit DRM software on peoples computer) and the government barley lifts a finger. I'm not generally defending Microsoft either, they do some weird things as well (like trying to restrict how much ram a windows XP netbook can come with), but Microsoft gets treated worse than those who behave worse. With Google it's the same thing, the government is always trying to find ways to get them in trouble for no good reason. It's like the government has everything backwards, those who act the wort get treated the best and those who act the best get treated the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For instance, the issue with bundling explorer was that governments (correctly) worried that Microsoft would embrace/extend/control HTML and the internet by leveraging their desktop market share.
We may well see similar efforts start to focus on Apple as they leverage their dominant smartphone position to lock out competition. Ironically, Android's increasing success is Apple's best defense, just like Apple's acquisition of Quattro and upcoming iAds platform is Google's best defense against accusations of anticompetitive behavior in the ad market. Funny, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Apple isn't, by this move, forcing people to use only their apps on the platform but is forcing developers to develop software without an additional translation layer. Nothing says that they have to use APPLE'S software but the fact that theirs is the only development software out there that will do the job. There is nothing in the developer's license agreement to restrict them from using software that someone else may develop that creates software that fits the requirements without such a later. It merely disallows that additional layer.
Again, there is NOTHING in that license agreement that prevents a developer from developing for another platform, they are perfectly capable of creating the same apps for other platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This was my point. Apple is not a monopoly, and their actions are not illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's amazing how so many companies can be "too big to fail" without having to worry about anti trust laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The guy in the tin foil hat would say that it's in Microsoft's best interest to keep the "rich web content" far away being so heavily invested in client applications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fortunate Sons
If you bring up the spectre of anti-trust, suddenly they are underdogs again.
"...when the tax man comes, their place looks like a rummage sale, yeah..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The DoJ doesn't care because X doesn't run on every kiosk, ATM, terminal, and business computer in most of the known world. Google gets similar attention simply because of the amount of places that they are.
If Apple ever allows it's software to run on non-Apple hardware (which they won't) then you may see more scrutiny.
That being said, developing an XP Embedded system was the most fun I've had with software in a long time. Where else do I get to take home lots of micro-micro computers to play with???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partly
Jobs' actual points:
1) Adobe wants people to build [b]web sites[/b] using their proprietary tools. Apple supports open standards for [b]web sites[/b]
2) Apple wants native applications to be tightly integrated with the OS/device, and abstraction layers like flash reduce customer value
3) Adobe has a long history of overpromising and underdelivering, and of serious quality/performance issues
All of the points are accurate, technically speaking. However, Jobs' real point, of course, is that he wants to maintain product differentiation for the iPhone by taking the "we'll ship a less perfect iPhone experience using Flash cross-compiling to we can ship the same thing on other platforms" option off the table for developers.
So, yeah, his motives aren't at all about openness or anything like that. But he didn't say they were, when it comes to applications. It's a little unfair to accuse him of hypocrisy, but totally fair to accuse him of wandering into anti-competitive practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Partly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Partly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Partly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Partly
I am kind of anti-Flash, because it is buggy, crashes my browsers, and causes my browsers to sit at 100% CPU utilization all the time. But, you can throw my experience out, because I'm anti-Flash, eh?
I guess, if you only count results from people who have not had problems with Flash, it is true that they are not seeing those issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Partly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Partly
The single greatest selling point, the thing that allows us to call it better, is the user experience. I remember when photoshop was a Mac-only program. Now the Mac version looks like bastardized windows software. This is what Apple is trying to prevent for the iPhone/iPad. If they don't, what makes them worth buying. Without the user experience, what are they beyond just being cool, and if they're just cool, how long does that last?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partly
The fact of the matter is, you are obviously not a developer and/or capable of distinguishing the fact that a crappy interface can be developed with Apple's own (blessed) tools is as possible as it is for a cross-compiled app to have a nice, and consistent interface to the Apple platform. In fact, it's more likely for a developer uncomfortable with the Apple tools to develop an application that is in the end worse, than a cross-compiled application made with a toolkit they are comfortable with. Then again, all those iFart apps built with Apple's own tools must be truly great software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partly
If you worked for me, you'd be fired! Seriously, any tech that uses re-imaging as a crutch won't last long in our company. A good tech determines the underlying issue and resolves it. Re-imaging should always be a last resort.
With that said, in some cases due to time/client constraints it makes more sense to re-image, however, in most cases the knowledge and experience you gain is
FAR more important in the long run.
Also, my team supports over 2k PCs and Adobe Flash is installed on them all. I can tell you that I've NEVER SEEN ONE CASE of having to re-image a system because of it. Not saying that Adobe hasn't caused errors, I've yet to find a perfect program yet, but the thought of having to re-image a system because of flash is just insulting.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partly
As to use experience, I've never had a good experience with a Mac. To be honest, I've had better experiences with Linux, which I barely know how to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Partly
Stupid reasoning, to think that folks without those problems would perhaps join in the complaints...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Partly
4) Apple will only allow apps that have been created purely within the Apple ecosystem, thus making them economically unviable to port to a competing platform, which would be easy if they were developed using Adobe's, GarageGames' or Unity3D's cross-compilers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Partly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...just not swimming in the cool-aid.
More "apps" that developers can't use the tools of their own choosing makes me dependent on Apple. Web apps developed by tools owned by Flash makes me dependent on Adobe but to a far lesser degree.
Also, I get to use Adobe's standards for free.
I don't get to use Apple's standards for free.
Even on an Apple device, I would rather use a cross platform web app then something that is primarily there to make up for the fact that the iThing has a p*ss-poor browser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
after all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: after all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple.com update
http://bit.ly/b9AbfC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flash sucks. Find better heroes
Apple is the most profitable tech company on the world, a multi-billion dollar corporation. There are plenty of things to hate about them, from app store policy to developer pricing to mouse design. But do not make Flash your hero in this fight. Flash needs to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flash sucks. Find better heroes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well, in one case...
Carlo...
In this *particular* case this is far from the truth -- Jobs does nothing but heap praise on the open web. And with the stuff SproutCore's been doing on touch with web apps, for instance (work Apple funds, no less), in this case they *can* puff their chest out a little.
But otherwise, sure, the hypocrisy is ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All about user exerience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All about user exerience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All about user exerience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All about user exerience
This has nothing to do with Flash and nothing to do with circumventing the App Store. In fact, they are actually encouraging 3rd-party tools makers to work outside of the Apple ecosystem (assuming that there is financial motive to do so). The point is that Apple is blocking platform-native apps from being offered in the App Store; if they're compiled down to Objective-C the source language is irrelevant.
Also, I find your last statement particularly hilarious. How much does Apple charge for their SDK (hint: it's more than $0)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All about user exerience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All about user exerience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All about user exerience
"An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."
I'm tired of quoting this, but Apple prohibited all embedded interpreters and VMs. That is, you can't provide a native application that runs a script or bytecode.
Think for a moment. Why would Apple prohibit this? It's simple, it circumvents iStore. An application that can execute scripts, bytecode, or executes allows one to run other applications from within the application. That means such applications provide the means to retrieve and use new applications without the iStore. It even enables things like programming an iOS application directly on an iOS device and distributing it without the iStore involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It wasn't always this way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It wasn't always this way...
Not that he doesn't want control of the mobile OS X platforms...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Chaplain estate is calling...
There are no real alternative browsers for the iDevices.
Your argument is just numerology and nonsense. It's like hyping up the fact that the Apple app store has so many apps. The number isn't necessarily meaningful. The drek being counted isn't necessarily useful.
It's a page straight out of IBM marketing from the 80s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Chaplain estate is calling...
The above poster's comment that Steve wants total 100% control is not supported by the facts he cites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most important at the bottom
It ends up being about control, as usual for Apple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Most important at the bottom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most important at the bottom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Most important at the bottom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is not the destination but the route travelled...
* perform well
* meet a certain standard of UI consistency
* provide a good user experience
Then they would simply make THESE the criteria for selection. Not some arbitrary "thou shalt not use x tools to build your app". Yes the user experience comes into it, but this is also about locking in the developer community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is not the destination but the route travelled...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the pudding?
Mindless rhetoric from platform partisans is pretty irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Java
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me when recess is over, children
"Nearly every accusation Jobs levels at Adobe and its products can be made about Apple and the way it seeks to control iPhone app development."
What? The iPhone is built by...wait for it...Apple. OF COURSE they want to control iPhone app development. Why shouldn't they? More importantly, why does it offend your delicate sensibilities?
Argue that it's a bad business model (which the latest earnings statements say is wrong, but okay...whatever). Argue that it's bad for the developer ecosystem (aaannnd, wrong again. Lots of folks building cool things and making lots of money at the App Store). Or just say it pisses you off not to be able to choose your own tools (Okay. I can see why it would). But spare us the self-righteous moaning. It's undignified and really tiresome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call me when recess is over, children
"Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world."
Really? Any other platform? In the whole world? For games?
Steve Jobs is either a moron, crazy or a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Call me when recess is over, children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call me when recess is over, children
Whether or not you are fine with that is one thing.
However, it is childish to try and deny it and shout down those that care about little things like freedom and being able to make a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Call me when recess is over, children
But no, it's not really about quality so much as censorship, as can be seen with Phone Story Game which clearly is not inferior in quality to many other iStore apps (there are far more crummy ones that that), just like the ban on Flash has very little to do with quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those complaining about Flash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Those complaining about Flash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a better way
A good working example of a governing community is Java and the Java Community Process. While technically proprietary to Oracle/Sun, it is openly governed.
At present with a proprietary development platform, Apple has impacts developers by doubling their efforts if they want to support non-Apple products. Why, because for a start they have to re-code their apps from scratch with a different language. Apple has differentiated their platform enough that you even have to re-design the apps. So the port isn't cheap.
Has Apple offered to license Objective C on Windows? No.
Has Apple allowed Java on iPhone? No.
Maybe that's ok. Apple has decided to focus on consumer appliances. But I'll miss Apple and OS X as a computing platform.
Re: flash. Is Apple allowed to quash one monopoly by using their own? Of course in this case, they are doing it by never allowing flash on in the first place. But still...seems anti-competitive to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the pissing and whining about how Flash is killing Macs is not even remotely accurate to my experience, anyway.
My $.02, as a designer is that HTML5 is the future, but it has to happen organically. Trying to force the conversion for your end-users is never something I can get behind, despite any failings of Flash (of which there are plenty, for sure).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little late but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little late but...
Apple is on a slippery slope, and as a shareholder, I feel that it is finally time to begin looking at their draconian policies more closely, because you can only exploit your customer base for so long before they begin to catch on and look for a better alternative. Thanks for all the $$$ you made me over the past 6 years Steve, but unfortunately, it appears that you're setting up your competitors for success at your expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google FTW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
That is totally, completely unacceptable.
Their complaints about flash being a battery hog and stability are bunk. I can't tell you how many times I've had to wipe clean my ipod touch and reinstall all the apps I had. Battery life? If you use safari on it often it gets dried out fast. The idea that Flash is any worse is a weak joke.
I've been an Apple customer since approx 1988 or so, I had an Apple IIe, IIc, a Power Computing clone, a 3G tower, macbook, powerbooks etc. and on and on up until my current macbook. I tell you what though. I will never buy another Apple product again. I'm done. Finished, it's over Jobs.
And the build quality of Apple is way overrated. I've had numerous problems with my macbooks. One had to be sent to the shop 4 times. Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]