Apple: Closed, Proprietary Systems Are Bad (Unless They're Our Own)

from the do-as-I-say-not-as... dept

Thu, Apr 29th 2010 4:58pm — Carlo Longino

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

Filed Under: closed, flash, open
Companies: adobe, apple

113 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:07pm

How is Apple locking developers into only developing for Apple? There's nothing in the agreement that prevents a developer from developing the same apps for multiple platform. I understand that developers would much prefer to be able to develop an app once, but that usually ends up with a substandard app. And just because they may have to make multiple versions, there's usually a ton of material that can be reused.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:08pm

"Apple supports a great, open standards-based world."

You're kidding me, right? Have you read their Eula? Apple makes Microsoft look like GPL software.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:09pm

Re:
"There's nothing in the agreement that prevents a developer from developing the same apps for multiple platform."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:21pm

If Microsoft Did It
The funny thing is that if Microsoft were to adopt the same locked-down platform business strategy as Apple does on the iPhone/iPad and iTunes it would be sued and investigated by governments all over the World.

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 thread ]
Mr.Anderson (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:34pm

No different than other "platforms"
This is no different than other "platforms". For example: if you want to make your video game for the Xbox 360, you utilize the developer tools provided by Microsoft, the same for PS3 and Sony, and the Wii and DS with Nintendo.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:36pm

Re: If Microsoft Did It
Have you never heard of the Xbox 360?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:36pm

"The funny thing is that if Microsoft were to adopt the same locked-down platform business strategy as Apple does on the iPhone/iPad and iTunes it would be sued and investigated by governments all over the World."

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 thread ]
Brooks (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:38pm

Partly
I mostly agree, but it's a shame that Jobs didn't do a better job of highlighting the distinction between native apps and web sites, or that Techdirt wasn't smarter about seeing the distinction.

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 thread ]
Skex One, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:39pm

This is the biggest crock of shit apple has ever spat out, and that's saying a lot. I hope they burn in hell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brooks (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:39pm

Re: Partly
Argh, goddamned PHPBB on the brain. Sorry about the [b]'s. You know what I mean.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:40pm

Re:
(heck, with Google the italian Government put three Google executives in jail for no good reason as well. Now that's bad).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:41pm

Re:
those who act the worst *
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brooks (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:43pm

Re:
Anti-trust law changes the rules when you are arguably a monopoly. As a four person software shop, I can lock my customers into buying only my add-on software. That would be flagrantly illegal for Microsoft.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:44pm

Re: No different than other "platforms"
"If this was Google saying that their OPEN Android platform can't run Flash, I could understand people complaining."

So why does Google get held to a higher standard?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brooks (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:45pm

Re: No different than other "platforms"
Actually, the Flash cross-compilation issue is more akin to Microsoft saying that you can't use the Unreal engine to develop for Xbox 360 because it can also be used for PS3, and doesn't produce "native enough" code.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:48pm

Re: No different than other "platforms"
No one is saying they need to support any specific api (your straw man about microsoft and ps3). Apple is actively saying that you can't use specific tools, that already work, that have NO technical reason for blocking.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:51pm

Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
I missed this the first time I read this comment. How can anyone not see the difference. That comment makes me more mad than anything. The cult of mac lives on, their god can't do anything wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 5:59pm

Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
The physical hardware belongs to the buyer, the software doesn't. Good luck using that phone with no software telling it what to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr.Anderson (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:02pm

Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
@ Anonymous Coward: Good luck trying to tell Microsoft that their Xbox 360 should play PS3 games - just because you bought the 360 hardware. The hardware/os is a "platform" made by the specific company, they offer SUPPORT in terms of real support and development support (if they allow 3rd party development at all - remember the iPhone didn't support non-Apple native apps when it was introduced).

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 thread ]
Mark DeVries, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:14pm

Re: No different than other "platforms"
You can actually build your games for these platforms using any programming language you want. You cant for the iphone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:17pm

Re:
Who do you think the gov is going to go after, when an x-vice president of the united states sits on Apples board of directors. Al Gore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:19pm

Re: Partly
from people that I have polled, the only ones that seem to think flash is buggy or has issues, are the apple fan boys or anyone anti flash. In the real world, most people are not seeing these issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:23pm

Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
You're confused when it comes to programming. The Flash compiler takes code written in flash's programming language, Actionscript 3, and outputs valid objective-c code which is compiled for the iPhone. The apps created using Flash run as native iPhone apps, not as a Flash .swf file. Apples new agreement bans anyone using a cross compiler to write apps for their phone. The new agreement says you must write your app using their predetermined set of programming languages. Microsoft, or Sony, or Nintendo do not place these restrictions on you as far as I know. You can build your games using any programming language you like, so long as your final compiled game is something that targets the specific API's available in the specific game console, which is exactly what the Flash iPhone compiler does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:23pm

Re: Re: If Microsoft Did It
last I checked, you could port games to and from the 360. plus, you could buy/sell the games from/through someone other than microsoft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:24pm

after all
oranges are better for you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:26pm

Re: No different than other "platforms"
You can port to every kind of system you just mentioned except Apple's iPhone/iPod/iPad.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:28pm

Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
Apple prohibits what software runs on YOUR hardware. You're not allowed to run your own software. So, your point is invalid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aldo, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:30pm

Apple.com update
This is a sneak preview of the next update on Apple's site whit a special section for Adobe Flash

http://bit.ly/b9AbfC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Al, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:32pm

Re: Partly
You missed point 4
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:32pm

Flash sucks. Find better heroes
Flashis tryly crap. Technically, economically, philisophically, flash is a steaming load.

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 thread ]
Brooks (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:34pm

Re: Re: Partly
Um. You might want to revisit that methodology.

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 thread ]
SteveJobsisanidiot, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:35pm

Re: Flash sucks. Find better heroes
just like steve jobs, you to are an idiot sir
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brooks (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:36pm

Re: Re: Partly
Well, I was enumerating his *arguments* defending that policy. You'll note that I did say:
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dean Landolt, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:57pm

well, in one case...
"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."

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 thread ]
Yuniverse, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:03pm

Re:
[Quote]by Skex One This is the biggest crock of shit apple has ever spat out, and that's saying a lot. I hope they burn in hell.[/Quote] I hope not. I love their products. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:16pm

All about user exerience
I think the issue is the end-user experience. Apple works really hard to provide a good user experience. If you app or your library or your code has a negative impact on the user experience that is bad for Apple. Apple is going to get the negative feedback and support calls. My mom can use her iphone because it just works. All the policing of apps comes down to being user friendly. Without customers you do not need a developer network. As long as customers are buying iphones, ipads and apps then there will be developers willing to do the work to sell their apps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mjb5406 (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:41pm

Re:
Yes, because it's SO easy to cross-develop when you MUST use the iPhone SDK and Xcode on a Mac, which ONLY runs on a Mac and ONLY generates iPhone apps. Jobs won't allow you to use cross-compilers, generators, whatever, unless Apple provides the tool. Even Microsoft doesn't force that.

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 thread ]
mjb5406 (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:44pm

Re: No different than other "platforms"
The bottom line is that Steve Jobs wants developers to only develop for the iPhone. _Period. He never wants to see an iPhone app appear on the Android Market or the BlackBerry AppStore. This is Jobs' world, run by his rules, and if you don't like it, go elsewhere. He has blatant contempt for anything non-Apple... like he said "if you want porn, get an Android phone". Lots of lass, Stevie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mjb5406 (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 7:46pm

It wasn't always this way...
Remember when the iPhone first made its appearance? There was no such thing as native app... everything was WebApps, and had to run on the iPhone's version of Safari. That's Jobs' mentality... he wants total, 100% control of the entire Apple ecosystem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alan, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:08pm

Re: No different than other "platforms"
"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, et"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Partly
it's much easier to throw out your so-called experience because you're exaggerating
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:33pm

Most important at the bottom
"Sixth, the most important reason... We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers."

It ends up being about control, as usual for Apple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 8:43pm

Re: Most important at the bottom
The purpose of that control is to maintain a good user experience. People like Apple products because of good design and ease of use. Apple values the customer more than they value app developers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 29 Apr 2010 @ 9:00pm

The problem is not the destination but the route travelled...
If Apple wanted to have apps that

* 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 thread ]
TheCr4zyM4n, 29 Apr 2010 @ 9:34pm

Re: No different than other "platforms"
You might want to brush up on your game system development knowledge.. Because a couple developers admit to making their game on the 360 and porting it to the PS3 to make the cost cheaper.

P.S I love reading TechDirt as well, I also just registered and this is my first comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eric Stein (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 9:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Partly
It may be easy to you to throw Brooks' experience, but mine is spread across 193 Macs used by teachers and students, and I could tell which ones had been running flash games because those were the ones I had to re-image every week or two. It's ridiculous to argue that that cross-compiled software is going to offer as high quaility an experience as software developed with tools made for the platform.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 9:57pm

Re: after all
Now you're just mixing apples and oranges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sos, 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:11pm

Java
iPhone cannot run browser based Java applets either. I dont hear anyone bitching about that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tracker1 (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 10:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partly
It depends on the cross compiler tool. Monotouch in particular exposes as close to a 1-1 API level to their tools as is available in any of the other cross-compilers, while allowing one to leverage libraries and utilities that may already be written for an application interface. Beyond this, your beloved mac platform has a huge amount of cross-compiled applications used on that platform. On the web server side, Apache is often (cross-compiled) to the mac, as is most of the underlying BSD toolchain, and even the microkernel.

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 thread ]
Cameron Crotty (profile), 29 Apr 2010 @ 11:28pm

Call me when recess is over, children
I do love Techdirt, but this is poorly thought out and really just sour grapes:

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 11:46pm

Re: Call me when recess is over, children
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/?reddit

"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 thread ]
Freedom, 29 Apr 2010 @ 11:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partly
>> ones had been running flash games because those were the ones I had to re-image every week or two.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2010 @ 11:59pm

Re: Re:
Except that Micro$oft isn't a monopoly, thus this argument bears little weight. Sorry, but a browser is something of a necessity on an OS installation. Otherwise, how would one ever get on the internet? I suppose you could force them to include Firefox and Opera, but hell, might as well toss in Mosaic for color at that point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse, 30 Apr 2010 @ 12:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Partly
And why do you think that is? With PhotoShop, I mean. Could it be that the Windows market is so much bigger that a marketing decision was made to make it cross-platform? When the bulk of your profits come from a single source, of COURSE your software is going to look like it was made for that system, regardless what OS you use.

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 thread ]
jens, 30 Apr 2010 @ 12:59am

Re: No different than other "platforms"
Seriously, the comparison with xbox, wii, ds and other game systems has to stop. Apple stopped a tool from Adobe that transformed actionscript and flash to iphone binaries. On the other hand, you can develop wii games with the unity game engine, or use XNA to develop both for xbox and for windows. These are the cross compiler tools that apple is blocking.

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 thread ]
vyvyan, 30 Apr 2010 @ 1:03am

Re: Re: Partly
Even that serves the purpose. If I have to jump 3/4 weird characters from time to time, I would notice it. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slander (profile), 30 Apr 2010 @ 3:44am

Re: Re: Call me when recess is over, children
Steve Jobs is a moronic, crazy liar.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rwahrens (profile), 30 Apr 2010 @ 5:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
No, his point IS valid. He said that the software on the platform doesn't belong to the user - a perfectly valid point in almost every EULA in the software industry.

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 thread ]
rwahrens (profile), 30 Apr 2010 @ 5:54am

Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
Crap.

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 thread ]
Josh, 30 Apr 2010 @ 5:54am

Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
The customer who bought iPhone can do whatever they want with them. It's called jailbreaking. Of course doing that causes you to have to delay system updates on the phone till then next version is broken and you expose the phone to all sorts of security and stability vulnerabilities.

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 thread ]
Josh, 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
Why are you complaining about the lack of Actionscript support. Objective C supports importing code from C, C++, Python, Ruby, Java and probably a fair number of other languages.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
If I can't install my own software on the hardware, then I don't own the hardware. I think you're misinterpreting my statement. I'm talking about jailbreaking. If I can't install my own OS on there, then I don't own the hardware. Pure and simple. So again, his point IS INVALID. He says a buyer owns the hardware, but not the software. However, with Apple, that's simply not true.

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 thread ]
rwAhrens (profile), 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:10am

Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but Micro$oft WAS declared a monopoly by the courts. the point was, it was - illegally - leveraging its monopoly to force its own browser on the market at the expense of other browsers. That is an illegal use of monopoly power.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
You're obviously not a programmer either as you obviously don't understand what a cross-compiler does because your entire comment is pretty much useless. The reason for a cross-compiler is that you can write a multi-platform application that can be compiled to run on other platforms. However, Apple won't allow that. EVERY OTHER SYSTEM DOES. Apple is the only one that prohibits it for non-technical reasons (if it was a technical reason, it wouldn't need to be enforced by an agreement).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rwahrens (profile), 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:13am

Re: Re: Partly
Maybe because it does those things on Macs? And that we see it because it happens on OUR machines? Others probably don't complain about that because it works better on PCs, dontcha think?

Stupid reasoning, to think that folks without those problems would perhaps join in the complaints...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:15am

Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
Apple has been going out of their way to try and make it illegal to jailbreak your phone. They make you agree to an EULA that says you won't jailbreak your phone. If their EULA is the be all end all like all of you supporters seem to think, then Jailbreaking your iPhone is just as bad as using a cross-compiler. Adobe would never support jailbreaking as its too gray of an area in terms of legality. That would open them up to a lawsuit from Apple. I'm fairly certain Apple would love to see that at this point.

Way to pick which rules someone is allowed to break and which ones you can't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
yea, actually there is. it explicitly states you can't use third party (re: not Apple) tools... so... what was your point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:24am

Re: All about user exerience
Let the app store review weed out the bad programs then. if someone does well with a cross-compiler, there's no reason it shouldn't be allowed unless its for anti-competitive reasons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:26am

Re: Re: Most important at the bottom
They review all apps before allowing them in the store. they can weed out bad apps then. no reason for cross-compilers to be prohibited other than anti-competitive reasons. It has nothing to do with user experience. They have their review process for that. Or is that suddenly not enough censure for people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rwahrens (profile), 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:34am

Re: It wasn't always this way...
crap. There are now other browsers approved for the iPhone, and developers are NOT prevented from developing web apps, as a matter of fact, there are good ones out there right now.

Not that he doesn't want control of the mobile OS X platforms...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:52am

Re: Re: Re: Most important at the bottom
Things built with Flash can be downloaded from anywhere, they would not go through the app store. So if the Flash library/plugin is crap/buggy then end-users are going to have a bad experience. It about control of the end-user experience. You can hate on Apple but I there is nothing wrong with blocking buggy crap. Besides, with Flash developers have to pay Adobe to play. Why not promote an open standard that doesn't require proprietary development software?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:52am

Re: Re: All about user exerience
Things built with Flash can be downloaded from anywhere, they would not go through the app store. So if the Flash library/plugin is crap/buggy then end-users are going to have a bad experience. It about control of the end-user experience. You can hate on Apple but I there is nothing wrong with blocking buggy crap. Besides, with Flash developers have to pay Adobe to play. Why not promote an open standard that doesn't require proprietary development software?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 6:54am

Re: The problem is not the destination but the route travelled...
Its about locking out buggy crap that has a negative effect on end-users. Adobe can keep their bloated, over-priced yestertech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hoeppner, 30 Apr 2010 @ 7:05am

Re: Re:
I thought Microsoft frequently did mess with HTML standards, mainly in slowing down the rolling out of new ones.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 7:54am

Re:
Shhhh, Jobs has purposefully made it completely ridiculous this time as a 100% infallible litmus test for fanboism!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 30 Apr 2010 @ 8:36am

Re: No different than other "platforms"
> This is 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 thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 30 Apr 2010 @ 8:39am

Fortunate Sons
Ask any Apple fanboy. They are dominant enough in the smartphone market to be considered a monopoly. When it's all about how their platform will take over the world, it's already halfway there.

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 thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 30 Apr 2010 @ 8:42am

...just not swimming in the cool-aid.
Oh. Techdirt gets it. They just haven't drunk 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 thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 30 Apr 2010 @ 8:45am

The Chaplain estate is calling...
Those "other" browsers are just a token gesture.

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 thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 30 Apr 2010 @ 8:47am

Where's the pudding?
Ultimately, the proof is in testing.

Mindless rhetoric from platform partisans is pretty irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 30 Apr 2010 @ 8:49am

Re: Call me when recess is over, children
The iphone is a garden of pure ideology.

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 thread ]
Dowap, 30 Apr 2010 @ 8:53am

Those complaining about Flash
When Flash actually runs on mobile then you can start complaining. Flash doesn't run on Android now or win6.5 or symbian. So stop using this lame argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 8:59am

There's a better way
If Apple wants a sustainable developer community then it should allow that community access to decision making in their product platform.

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 thread ]
Freedom, 30 Apr 2010 @ 9:35am

Re: 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

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 thread ]
Griff, 30 Apr 2010 @ 10:03am

Re:
Probably the only reason Apple gets away with it is because they run house software on house-made machines.

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 thread ]
hegemon13, 30 Apr 2010 @ 10:13am

Re: No different than other "platforms"
"For example: if you want to make your video game for the Xbox 360, you utilize the developer tools provided by Microsoft, the same for PS3 and Sony, and the Wii and DS with Nintendo.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 11:57am

Re: Re: Re:
"Anti-trust law changes the rules when you are arguably a monopoly. As a four person software shop, I can lock my customers into buying only my add-on software. That would be flagrantly illegal for Microsoft."

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2010 @ 1:54pm

Re: If Microsoft Did It
That's true!

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 30 Apr 2010 @ 2:01pm

Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
I'm far, far from a Microsoft booster, but how exactly does Microsoft lock you into their system? Seriously. This comment baffles me totally.

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 thread ]
magnafides, 30 Apr 2010 @ 2:20pm

Re: Re: Re: All about user exerience
Ah yes, another commenter who knows nothing about development spouting off crap.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 4:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: All about user exerience
You don't need an SDK to do web video or other Flash like things. I'm not talking about using Apple's SDK in place of Flash. I'm talking about using something else, perhaps HTML5. Take a look in the mirror, you might see who doesn't get it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 4:52pm

Re: Those complaining about Flash
Perhaps there is a good reason that Flash doesn't run on these devices, like it doesn't work well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 5:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: All about user exerience
You imply that you know something about development and then you talk about things "compiled down to Objective-C". Objective-C is a programming language, things get compiled to machine code. Your comment makes no sense. Get a clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2010 @ 7:45pm

I've had a Flash related issue maybe like three times on my Macbook Pro, and it was always using Safari. Haven't had a single issue using Firefox, and none since I switched completely to Chrome.

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 thread ]
Miguel Correia, 1 May 2010 @ 2:33pm

Re:
yeah, right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Miguel Correia, 1 May 2010 @ 2:41pm

Re: No different than other "platforms"
Well, actually it is different from other platforms. I've been a developer for over 20 years and no company before had told me what tools I would be allowed to develop with to target their platform. Even the "oh so evil Microsoft" (not evil from where I'm standing) has allowed me to choose the tools I've wanted for *any* of its platforms. I mean, yes, it's their SDK, but any other vendor has always been able to target it. Even Windows Mobile works that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Miguel Correia, 1 May 2010 @ 2:44pm

Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
I will! I don't want porn, but the right to want it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rwahrens (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 8:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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."

This was my point. Apple is not a monopoly, and their actions are not illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rwahrens (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 8:42am

Re: The Chaplain estate is calling...
Token gesture or not, they exist, they can be used, and app developers CAN develop web apps for the iPhone, iPod touch and the iPads.

The above poster's comment that Steve wants total 100% control is not supported by the facts he cites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rwahrens (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 8:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
" It creates a monopoly and severely hampers the system."

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 thread ]
rwahrens (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 9:02am

Re: 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"."

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 thread ]
WRXChris, 20 Jul 2010 @ 12:39pm

A little late but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WRXChris, 20 Jul 2010 @ 1:01pm

A little late but...
I am sick of Job's double standards. Flash is free to the user. AAC is a proprietary (and inflexible) audio codec that is essentially a DRM-infused mp3 that lacks the bitrate adjustability of an mp3 file. If you want to create a piece of software that interacts with an AAC file, you have to pay a $1 royalty to Apple per end user license. While indie devs are making music games that allow you to play any mp3 file (a truly open non-proprietary file format), Apple charges you to use your AAC iTunes files. If this isn't proprietary BS, I don't know what is, and Steve Jobs must be smoking PCP to be able to view the Apple universe as a "great, open-standards based world".

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 thread ]
Uhhhh, 15 Feb 2011 @ 8:24pm

Google FTW!
Once Google finally gets on its feet, Aplle will be put in the dust.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob Blah, 9 Jun 2011 @ 7:26am

Wow
I can't believe the justifications by some of the people here. The PS3 / XBOX comparisons are completely absurd. We're not talking about a gaming system, we're talking about the world wide web and an internet browser. What Apple is saying is that they want to control what you can and can't see on the internet.

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 thread ]
Ike, 17 Feb 2012 @ 3:27am

Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
Precisely correct! From Apple's own development 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)."

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 thread ]
Ike, 17 Feb 2012 @ 3:34am

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
Ike, 17 Feb 2012 @ 3:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No different than other "platforms"
You have to keep in mind that this code must compile to a native binary to be distributed through the iStore. It cannot run in a web browser, as that would be an application available outside of the iStore.

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 thread ]
Ike, 17 Feb 2012 @ 3:47am

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
Ike, 17 Feb 2012 @ 3:53am

Re: No different than other "platforms"
"This is no different than other "platforms". For example: if you want to make your video game for the Xbox 360, you utilize the developer tools provided by Microsoft, the same for PS3 and Sony, and the Wii and DS with Nintendo."

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 thread ]
Ike, 17 Feb 2012 @ 4:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: All about user exerience
Pot calling the kettle black?

"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 thread ]
Ike, 17 Feb 2012 @ 4:09am

Re: Re: Call me when recess is over, children
A garden of ideology from which Apple takes a 30% cut. It's undeniable that iStore is a brilliantly evil get-rich plan, and it's a great service too which gives developers one central place to share their work, provided it's approved by Apple.

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 thread ]
meemee, 3 Jul 2012 @ 3:50pm

Re:
LOL. That's so true. I think Apple had a taste of their own proprietary and restrictive medicine with Flash... meanwhile free software keeps growing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]